House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 146 ● NUMBER 263 ● 1st SESSION ● 41st PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 17703

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

The House met at 2 p.m. For example, in Drummond people can buy local food at the farmer's market and at the Écomarché de l'Avenir. In Saint-Hyacinthe —Bagot, there is the ÉcoMarché de solidarité régionale and the farmer's market, the oldest public market in Quebec. Prayers

Although this is a day for positive action, today's events are taking ● (1400) place in the shadow of Conservative attacks on the environment and [English] science. The Speaker: It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of our national anthem, today led by the pages. The greatest legacy we can leave to future generations is a clean [Members sang the national anthem] and healthy planet. Conservative policies threaten the environment, health and economic prosperity of Canadians. The NDP will replace the Conservatives in 2015, to offer future generations a healthy environment and a prosperous economy for all. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS [English] *** STATUS OF WOMEN Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. ● (1405) Speaker, the community training and development centre, in conjunction with the Community Employment Resource Partnership [English] Northumberland and the Status of Women Canada, have designed an initiative for the women of Northumberland County. The WISE By Plan initiative allows rural women to enhance their economic PROSTATE CANCER security. Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC): Mr. Approximately 200 women provided their feedback requesting Speaker, prostate cancer is a serious health concern for all local, accessible and easily understood training in job search Canadians. In fact, it is the most common cancer diagnosed in strategies and in financial literacy. The response includes a series Canadian men. Prostate cancer accounts for over a quarter of all new of videos featuring local job search stories. Within each video cancer cases in men. As we in this chamber know all too well, it can experts will provide leadership and guidance to job seekers. In have fatal consequences. addition, an online virtual coaching tool will be implemented to assist job seekers in developing personal career action plans. In my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, Dan Hennessey of This $296,000 project is just one more example of how our Bridgewater, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer over six years Conservative government is improving the lives of rural women in ago, has dedicated himself to making a difference in the lives of Northumberland—Quinte West and in Canada. those going through this disease, in addition to doing his part to raise awareness. To this end, he authored a book entitled With the Snap of *** a Glove and most recently launched the Blue Glove Men's Health [Translation] Fund, a not-for-profit that raises funds dedicated to men's health. The WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY Blue Glove fund is committed to improving the health and wellness of men and boys and their families, through mobile men's health Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, clinics and an education campaign. today marks World Environment Day. This year's theme is “Think. Eat.Save”. World Environment Day asks us to reflect on the environmental impact of our food choices. It encourages us to avoid I would like to thank Dan and recognize him for his dedication waste and buy locally. and hard work. 17704 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Statements by Members GRANDMOTHERS ADVOCACY NETWORK regional development model that focuses on the distinct character of Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across a rural areas. continent ravaged by HIV/AIDS, grandmothers have once again become primary caregivers for millions of children left orphaned by I am extremely privileged to have Claire Bolduc, the president of the terrible scourge and a lack of access to life-saving medicines and the organization, living in my riding. She is constantly travelling treatment. Unable to abide with the knowledge that so many sub- around Quebec to listen to, inspire and invigorate rural communities. Saharan grandmothers are left labouring through what should be more peaceful years, a group of selfless and dedicated women, and Tomorrow, Quebec's premier will appoint Claire Bolduc a some men, came together and vowed they would not rest until their chevalière de l'Ordre National du Québec, which is the highest African counterparts can. distinction the Quebec government can bestow upon an outstanding citizen. These women, now known as the Grandmothers Advocacy Network, are tireless in their efforts to not only bring awareness to the plight of parents, grandparents and children in sub-Saharan On behalf of all my constituents and the members of the House, I Africa, but they are also determined campaigners for reform of our would like to congratulate her on this well-deserved honour. As she access to medicines regime. so eloquently says, “A country is only as strong as its towns”.

When considering my role here in Parliament, I often look to the *** example provided by these spectacular women. I hope to embody a sliver of their dedication to service. ● (1410)

I rise on behalf of all members here to congratulate them on their [English] hard work and to stand with them as they stand with the grandmothers of Africa. GLOBAL ORGANIZATION OF PARLIAMENTARIANS *** AGAINST CORRUPTION 69TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I Speaker, as chair of the Canadian chapter of the Global Organization attended the 69th anniversary of D-Day in my riding of Etobicoke of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, I have the distinct pleasure Centre last Sunday, organized by the Royal Canadian Legion. of welcoming a delegation of four MPs from the National Assembly of Guyana who have come to study the estimates process here in D-Day was history's greatest military invasion, and Canadians Canada. were integral to victory from the time they came ashore on June 6, 1944 to VE Day. Despite fierce opposition, 14,000 Canadians took This event comes on the heels of a visit held by GOPAC Canada Juno Beach. In doing so, Canadians and Allied forces liberated to the Parliament of Jamaica, in which GOPAC Canada shared its Europe and ended the Nazi regime. experience with the public accounts committee of Jamaica and However, such victories come with a cost. There were 340 brave offered its assistance in helping the Jamaican PAC review and souls who were killed and a further 574 were wounded. We expand its mandate. remember their sacrifice made so that future generations of Canadians could live in freedom and never face the appalling GOPAC is composed of past and sitting members of Parliament, horrors that rendered humanity speechless. from all parties, who put their political differences aside to work together constructively to share experiences with other countries that I congratulate the Legion's district D for organizing this very are looking to strengthen accountability through improved scrutiny moving service. What Canadians accomplished on D-Day will live of the budget estimates. forever in our memories as one of the greatest moments of one of the greatest generations of Canadians that history will ever have the Today I would like to thank my colleagues from both sides of this honour to know. House and the members of GOPAC Canada for sharing their *** experiences this week, and to the Guyanese delegation for their interest in Canada's process. We look forward to continuing to learn [Translation] from each other and to deepening our co-operation. QUEBEC'S RURAL COMMUNITIES Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. *** Speaker, while rural areas continue to deal with a major structural crisis, there is an organization in Quebec whose mission is to NATURAL RESOURCES promote the revitalization and development of rural areas. Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. For more than 20 years, Solidarité rurale du Québec has been Speaker, the oil sands are the economic engine of this country, defending rural communities' right to be different and to use that providing 334,000 jobs in Canada today and $2.1 trillion toward our difference to their advantage. This organization is proposing a GDP—yes, that is trillion with a t—and one million jobs by 2035. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17705

Statements by Members The approval of the Keystone XL pipeline would not only create [Translation] economic stability for all of Canada, it would also provide the United States with $172 billion—that is billion with b—toward the U.S. GRANDMOTHERS ADVOCACY NETWORK GDP by 2035, with $99 million in local government revenues, $486 Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. million in state government revenues, and 1.8 million person-years Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to acknowledge the efforts of employment in the next 22 years. Wow. I am no doctor, but and achievements of the Grandmothers Advocacy Network. Keystone XL sounds like a perfect prescription to begin to cure an ailing U.S. economy. [English] As usual, the NDP opposes this Canadian pipeline and all The Grandmothers Advocacy Network, or GRAN, is a pan- Canadian jobs, but I would argue that a strong Canada-U.S. Canadian network of volunteer grandmother advocates working with economic partnership could only mean success for all citizens of our a multi-partisan scope and a humanitarian intent. It acts as a voice for great countries. the grandmothers of sub-Saharan Africa who are caring for millions of AIDS-orphaned children. *** ● (1415) [Translation] [Translation] INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION FOR WOMEN'S Today we have 45 grandmothers here from all across Canada. HEALTH Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. I would like to invite my colleagues to join us after oral question Speaker, on May 28 we celebrated the International Day of Action period to meet the grandmothers and congratulate them on their for Women's Health. This day provides an opportunity to reflect on efforts. the challenges associated with women's health, especially with [English] regard to reproductive rights. I congratulate GRAN for working to ensure dignity for the present A number of studies prove that access to contraceptives and vital and hope for the future of grandmothers and vulnerable young information results in positive outcomes such as better health, people in Africa. reduced poverty and greater gender equality. *** The situation of Beatriz in El Salvador is a glaring example of the need to fight for this right. Her life was at risk because of her LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA pregnancy, which she also had no chance of bringing to term. Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC): Mr. Speaker, days, weeks, and even months have passed Women have the right to choose. It is because of people like by since news broke of Liberal Senator Pana Merchant's $1.7 million Beatriz that this day of action is necessary. offshore account, and the leader of the Liberal Party still has not said *** a word. [English] What is worse, the Liberals are blocking the Auditor General from undertaking the audit in the Senate for which our government called. EGYPT It is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberal leader is more Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise interested in protecting the entitlements of Liberal senators and today to express my deep concern regarding Tuesday's decision by championing the status quo. an Egyptian court to convict 43 non-profit workers, including 27 foreign nationals, of illegally using foreign funds to foment unrest in In fact, the Liberal leader recently confessed that he did not think the country and sentencing them up to five years in jail. the Senate should change one bit because, “it benefits us”. For the Liberal leader, “us”, of course, equals just his home province of Civil society and international NGOs are legitimate actors in any Quebec. democratic state. These individuals were working to support the transparency of the government that has been closed for too long. When it comes to protecting Canada's national interests, the They seek to strengthen the dialogue between citizens and the Liberal leader does not seem to grasp that Canada is more than the government, supporting the aspirations of Egyptians for a stronger interest of any single province. When it comes to the Senate and his democratic country. support for the status quo, the Liberal leader simply is in way over his head. The targeting of civil society actors undermines the legitimacy of the judicial process and is a clear misuse of government power. *** Without legitimate institutions, a government cannot hope to THE ENVIRONMENT maintain the confidence of its people. Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, We continue to call on Egypt to work with their citizens to build a World Environment Day aims to be the biggest and most widely stronger and more democratic Egypt. celebrated global day for positive environmental action. 17706 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Oral Questions In Canada, during our Environment week, we must push the The Senate is like that box of junk you drag around move after government to develop a comprehensive climate change plan instead move without ever opening, yet that box does not cost $92 million a of its delay tactic, its sector-by-sector approach, as climate change is year and is not mired in scandal year after year. accelerating at a much faster rate than previously thought. The Liberals and Conservatives can defend their Senate friends all We must also push the government to protect the Arctic, which they want. They can claim to want to reform the Senate or they can faces unprecedented challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change, propose an improved status quo. The NDP, on the other hand, will ozone depletion, ensuring responsible and safe shipping and security take care of things. issues. *** We must also push the government to protect our water, keep our water safe for future generations and commit to a national water TAXES strategy. Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Let us recommit today to protecting our natural environment, Speaker, Canadians know that, to keep taxes low, everyone must particularly for the health and well-being of our children and do his or her fair share, and they expect MPs in particular to set an grandchildren. To ignore Canada's pressing environmental needs example, and with good reason. would be a gross disservice to future generations. Nevertheless, we know that the member for Brossard—La Prairie *** owes thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes. When he was asked about this yesterday, he told a newspaper that he had never tried to hide the [Translation] fact, yet in his 2011 declaration to the Office of the Conflict of THE SENATE Interest and Ethics Commissioner, he made no mention of this debt. Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, So much for transparency. CPC): Mr. Speaker, our party and our government demand real What is even more worrisome is that the Leader of the Opposition accountability of the Senate. That is why the Leader of the ignored the member's history as a deadbeat and appointed him as Government in the Senate asked the Auditor General to conduct a revenue critic in 2012. full audit of Senate expenses. Canadians want an explanation from the Leader of the Opposition, However, the Liberals in the Senate have prevented the Auditor and they want him to give this message to his caucus: pay your General from undertaking that audit. taxes. Speaking of the Senate, the Liberal leader is busy defending the status quo and the Liberal senators are busy protecting their rights. The Liberal leader's poor judgment does not stop there. The ORAL QUESTIONS Liberal leader has known for weeks that a Liberal senator is hiding $1.7 million in an offshore account. That senator continues to be part ● (1420) of the Liberal caucus only because the Liberal leader refuses to hold [English] the Senate to account. He is clearly not equipped to deal with this issue. ETHICS Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. *** Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said, “Mr. Duffy approached THE SENATE me to seek some clarification”. What kind of clarification did Mike Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Duffy seek? Speaker, we will let them fight it out. The upper chamber is so high Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. up—uppity, even—that it is completely out of touch with reality. The Speaker, our view from the outset is that all expenses must be Senate remains stuck in the 19th century. appropriate when they are claimed. If they are not appropriate, they should be reimbursed to the taxpayers. I have made this view known The chamber houses unelected party cronies who are not to a range of our caucus and also my staff. accountable to anyone, other than their buddies who put them there. The very people who are supposed to act as a counterbalance to the Mr. Duffy was seeking clarification on remarks I had made to this executive are themselves appointed by the executive. That is effect in caucus and I was adamant that any inappropriate expenses ridiculous. had to be reimbursed by him. It gets worse. Senator Dagenais, a walking example of [Translation] ridiculousness, is ignoring the advice of the Leader of the Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Government in the Senate and does not want the Auditor General Speaker, at the beginning of the scandal, the Prime Minister denied sticking his nose in the senator's business because he follows the giving orders to his staff. Yesterday, he was forced to admit that he rules. The Prime Minister said the same thing about Wallin and did indeed give orders to his caucus. Duffy. He said that they followed the residency rules, until we realized that was not true. Was Nigel Wright at that caucus meeting or not? June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17707

Oral Questions Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. What real reason did Nigel Wright give for writing that $90,000 Speaker, my view from the outset has been clear. Expenses must be cheque? appropriate and if there are inappropriate expenses claimed by a senator or a member, then they must be reimbursed to the taxpayers. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Wright has been clear about why he did I made this view known to my caucus and obviously to my staff. what he did and the effect of what he did. He has also accepted We have very high expectations of our staff. responsibility for that. He has been very clear that he is prepared to Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. be accountable and answer all questions from the Ethics Commis- Speaker, was Nigel Wright present at the meeting between the Prime sioner and all authorities, and he is doing that. Minister and Mike Duffy or not? [Translation] Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I already said that I made my view known to the entire Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): If the Prime Minister's caucus and all my employees. Office really wanted to reimburse taxpayers for Mike Duffy's [English] $90,000 in expenses, it could have deducted the money from his pay.

I have been clear about this. I have made it very clear what my The Prime Minister claims that despite the ethics rules and the views were to all my staff and to our caucus. We expect Criminal Code, his chief of staff thought that the best solution was to inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed and I would expect they write a big cheque. would be reimbursed by the person who incurred them. I would certainly not expect them to be reimbursed by somebody else. If I can be so bold as to assume that the Prime Minister did not Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. buy this excuse any more than Canadians do, what real reasons did Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated that Nigel Wright's full Nigel Wright give for writing that $90,000 cheque? severance package, including vacation pay and other benefits, would be less than $90,000, so he knows the amount. If he can tell us it is Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. less than $90,000, why can he not tell us the amount? Speaker, Mr. Wright said he wrote cheques to ensure that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. taxpayers would be reimbursed, and he actually repaid taxpayers out Speaker, once again, I have indicated that Mr. Wright will obviously of his own pocket. be paid only those amounts required by law. That is our obligation under the law. Any suggestion that he is being compensated for any He admitted that this was an error in judgment and he is prepared other reason, anything directly or indirectly, to do with his paying to be accountable to the authorities, including the Conflict of Interest Mr. Duffy's expenses is categorically false. and Ethics Commissioner. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on May 17, long after the Prime Minister knew about the [English] cheque, his director of communications said, “The prime minister has full confidence in Mr. Wright and Mr. Wright is staying on”. Yes Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we still have or no, did the Prime Minister authorize that statement by Andrew not heard why. Perhaps the real reason is linked to the fact that Nigel MacDougall? Wright was a director, for seven years, of the Conservative Fund, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. fundraising arm of the Conservative Party, including in 2008, when Speaker, as I have indicated, Mr. Wright informed me of his personal Mike Duffy was appointed to the Senate and became active as an cheque on May 15. This was an error in judgment. He indicated he important fundraiser. did this because he believed that taxpayers should be reimbursed and he was prepared to ensure that happened, as in fact it did happen. I will ask the Prime Minister again: Why did he appoint Mike However, obviously this was an error in judgment for many reasons Duffy to the Senate? that have already been outlined and for that reason, I accepted his resignation. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, we need to be absolutely clear here. Mr. Wright This is a couple of days we are talking about. The leader of the paid these monies from his own personal funds. That was his NDP withheld information from the public about envelopes from the decision, for which he takes full responsibility. mayor of Laval for 17 years. He can explain that. ● (1425) We appoint a range of Canadians from different backgrounds to Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime the Senate, and we expect all of these senators to, obviously, uphold Minister's Office wanted to save the taxpayers $90,000 from Mike higher standards of ethics in the use of taxpayers' money. If they do Duffy's expenses, it could have docked his Senate pay until it was not, we expect there to be accountability. paid back. The Prime Minister said that his chief of staff thought, ethics rules and criminal law aside, that writing a big cheque was the On this side of the House, unlike the Liberal Party, we think the best plan. I presume the Prime Minister would not buy that flimsy Senate needs to be reformed or abolished. We do not defend the excuse any more than Canadians do. status quo. 17708 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Oral Questions Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, something does not add up. The Prime Minister just said Speaker, Mr. Wright informed me of his payment to Senator Duffy that Nigel Wright's motive in cutting the $90,000 cheque was to on May 15. I immediately required that matter to be disclosed, both protect the taxpayers. Mike Duffy is a wealthy man. He owns two to the Ethics Commissioner and to the public. At the same time, I did houses, and he is earning a six-figure salary. The Senate could have ask Mr. Wright whether he had any similar arrangements or had obliged him to reimburse. There is no way the taxpayer could have discussed any similar arrangements or had any similar arrangements been on the hook for that money. with other senators, and he said no. How can he believe that that is the motive? It does not even make Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. sense. Speaker, see? It is not that hard to answer. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: Mr. Wright spent his own money. He assured that that money went back to the Receiver The Speaker: Order, please. General of Canada, to the taxpayers of Canada. He wanted the taxpayers reimbursed, and he is prepared to be accountable before The hon. Leader of the Opposition. the Ethics Commissioner and others for his decision in that matter, Hon. Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Perrin has said which he admits was an error in judgment. that he was not involved in the “decision” to pay Mike Duffy Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. $90,000. He has not said if he was involved in the transaction in Speaker, it is clear that the Senate could have forced Mike Duffy to other ways. pay. Is it not also clear that Nigel Wright's real motive was to get this problem out of the Prime Minister's Office, as he had ordered during Can the Prime Minister tell us if his lawyer, Ben Perrin, was the meeting of his caucus where Nigel Wright was present? involved in any way, shape or form in this transaction with Mike Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Duffy? Speaker, I have been very clear. I never gave any such order, any Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. suggestion nor had any idea that Mr. Wright was using his personal Speaker, Mr. Perrin, who is now a private citizen, speaks for himself money to make sure the taxpayers were reimbursed. That is a on these matters. I believe, in fact, he has answered these questions decision he took on his own that he chose not to inform me about. and obviously would be prepared to answer the questions from He admits that was an error in judgment, and he will be accountable anybody else, just as I have done here. to the Ethics Commissioner for that decision. ● (1430) While we are answering questions, exactly how many stuffed envelopes over his career in Quebec provincial politics was the [Translation] leader of the NDP offered? Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since February, how many times has the Prime Minister Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. spoken to Senator Marjory LeBreton about the Senate expense Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister refused to say whether Ray scandal? Novak was involved in any of these discussions concerning Mike Duffy. I would like to ask the Prime Minister clearly now: Was Ray Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Novak involved in any way, shape or form in these discussions Speaker, obviously, I speak to the senators regularly, and I encourage concerning Mike Duffy, yes or no? the Senate to take measures to ensure that senators treat taxpayers' money with respect and uphold the highest standards of behaviour. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the facts here are very clear. Mr. Wright decided That is what we expect from all of the senators. to take an action on his own initiative, using his own funds. These [English] actions are his sole responsibility. I have no information before me to suggest they are anyone else's responsibility. Mr. Wright is obviously Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. answering for those actions, which he admits were a mistake, to the Speaker, the results of the Pamela Wallin audit are expected in the appropriate authorities. coming days. Has the Prime Minister been briefed in any way, shape or form concerning the preliminary results of the audit of Pamela [Translation] Wallin, Yes or no? Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, did Andrew MacDougall or Carl Vallée take part in any Speaker, I am not aware of the results of the audit. I am aware that discussions regarding the situation with Senator Mike Duffy? the audit has taken considerable time, and considerable issues remain unresolved. Beyond that, I am not aware of any particulars. ● (1435) Obviously, Senator Wallin has stepped outside the Conservative Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. caucus and understands she must resolve these matters. Speaker, as I said, there is only one person responsible. Mr. Wright Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. admitted what he did and chose to take full responsibility for his Speaker, was Pamela Wallin offered the same deal by the Prime actions. He is prepared to answer questions from the authorities Minister's chief of staff that was offered to Mike Duffy, Yes or no? about his actions, for which he is responsible. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17709

Oral Questions [English] leadership candidates also received illegal donations. When will the Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Liberal Party be accountable for those illegal donations? Speaker, how, then, was it possible for Andrew MacDougall and Carl Vallée to comment on all of these issues in detail on behalf of [English] the Prime Minister if they had not attended any of those meetings? Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party pleaded guilty in its in-and-out Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, it was Mr. Wright who made the finance scandal. Peter Penashue was forced out by gross campaign decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so irregularities. The Conservative database was used for illegal voter that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers. Those were his suppression. The PMO and Conservative senators engaged in a decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my cover-up of the Nigel Wright affair, and now we have two more office. They were Mr. Wright's decisions, but he takes full Conservative MPs sitting in this place under a cloud. responsibility for them.

*** Any fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador would say that fish 41ST GENERAL ELECTION rots from the head down. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the scandals in his caucus and on his watch? Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Elections Act is explicit, and I quote: “An elected Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister candidate who fails to provide a document as required by [subsection of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the 463(2)]...shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, provided”. CPC): Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to compare our record on this Today, two Conservatives have not provided these documents and side of the House of Commons to the Liberal record any day of the are therefore not allowed to sit in the House. Tonight we will be week. This is the party that passed the Federal Accountability Act. voting on the estimates. Is the Prime Minister seriously going to This is the party that banned big money and corporate cash from the allow the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the Parliamentary political system. This is the party whose Prime Minister has Secretary to the Minister of Finance to vote illegally on over $65 appointed every single senator who has been elected in the province billion? of Alberta and who has said to every province that they too can have the opportunity to choose their own senators. On this side of the Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister House, we say, in both official languages, the exact same thing: Our of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Senate should be elected. Our government should be accountable. Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Elections Act is clear on a lot of things. First (1440) of all, it is clear that these members have the ability to make this ● intervention at the court level. We also know that they acted in good Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, faith, and there is a difference of interpretation with Elections behold the Conservatives' code of ethics. Bend the rules, we blame Canada. the bureaucrats. Break the law, we hide behind party lawyers. Abuse The act is also clear that when a loan is not repaid, it becomes a the public trust, we just deny all responsibility. donation. If that donation is larger than the donation limit, it is a violation of the law. There are $500,000 in such illegal donations The Conservative members from Saint Boniface and Selkirk— currently held by the former Liberal leadership candidates. What is Interlake contravened the Canada Elections Act, and the Chief the Liberal Party doing to hold them to account? Electoral Officer has asked that they be suspended as MPs for these [Translation] violations, as is mandatory under subsection 463(2). What is the Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): Mr. government going to do to hold these Conservative MPs to account Speaker, Peter Penashue resigned for the simple reason that for violating elections law? Elections Canada was investigating his election expenses. In the Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister case of the two Conservative members, Elections Canada informed of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the this chamber that they do not have the right to sit in the House. Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, However, there they are in their seats. CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I said already, these members acted in good When will this Prime Minister order these two Conservatives to faith, and they were democratically elected by their constituents. leave the House until such time as they obey the law? That is why they sit in the House of Commons.They are exercising Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister their right to have this latest interpretation by Elections Canada of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the reviewed by the courts, and we look forward to the outcome of that. Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these members acted in good faith. They were The Leader of the Opposition said it was very easy to answer democratically elected by their constituents. The Elections Act is questions, and then seconds later he refused to answer a very basic also very clear that loans to candidates that are not repaid become factual one: How many envelopes of cash had he been offered when donations and that donations of more than $1,000 are illegal. Liberal he was in Quebec politics? 17710 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Oral Questions [Translation] Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will say this again in English to be Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): very clear. Mr. Speaker, either the parliamentary secretary does not know the law or he is ignoring it because he believes his party is above the Our government makes appointments based on merit. Positions law. on the Social Security Tribunal were advertised broadly. Members appointed went through a rigorous, competency-based selection It is extremely important that we report our election campaign process where they had to meet specific experience and competency expenses in detail. However, the members for Saint Boniface and criteria in order to have the roles. Selkirk—Interlake are still hiding theirs. They believe that they have found a loophole in the law, as in the case of the in and out scheme, *** that will allow them to win out. However, there are no shortcuts in a democracy. ● (1445) When will the Conservatives give Elections Canada the powers NATIONAL DEFENCE needed to prevent other violations of the Canada Elections Act? Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister anniversary of D-Day. Canada's armed forces played a critical role in of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the ensuring the liberation of Europe. We fought on the water, we fought Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, in the skies and we fought on the ground against the tyranny of CPC): Mr. Speaker, these members acted in good faith. They were Nazism. We will always remember the sacrifices of our men and democratically elected by their constituents. They now have the right women who died fighting in Canada's name for freedom. to argue their case in court, and we respect that right. Today, the Canadian Forces continue that proud tradition. We *** know that HMCS Toronto is doing incredible work in the GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS international fight against terrorism. Can the Associate Minister of National Defence update this House on the efforts of our brave men Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, and women sailing aboard HMCS Toronto? they did not even need to break the law. If they had lost the election, they were guaranteed a job in the Social Security Tribunal. Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Durham for his Take another example. Claude Durand, who ran in 2008, was service. parachuted into the EI Board of Referees, where she promptly broke the rules by continuing to make donations to the Conservatives. Was The Royal Canadian Navy has done incredible work in disrupting she punished? No. She was appointed to the Social Security the illegal drug trade in the Indian Ocean. In the past few weeks, Tribunal. HMCS Toronto stopped and boarded ships, and recovered over Why do they continue their Duplessis-style patronage, even when 1,100 kilograms of heroin. This week, HMCS Toronto made an those who benefit do not follow the rules? astonishing seizure of over six metric tonnes, or 6,000 kilograms, of hashish, the largest seizure in the history of the Combined Maritime Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forces. Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government makes appointments The women and men on the HMCS Toronto are working to keep based on merit. The Social Security Tribunal positions were widely shipping sea lanes free of pirates and terrorists, and our streets free of advertised. The members appointed were subject to a rigorous illicit drugs. We are very proud of these sailors. competency-based selection process and had to meet specific criteria relating to the experience and competencies required to perform *** these duties. [English] [Translation] Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Speaker, ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE this is pretty simple. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, People like Margot Ballagh, Claude Durand and Neil Nawaz yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety did not speak out against the broke donation rules by giving money to the Conservative Party after RCMP commissioner's condescending remarks about sexual harass- their first patronage appointment. However, instead of being ment. punished, they are being rewarded by the Conservatives with yet another plum patronage appointment. By calling into question the validity of the complaints, he is encouraging women who work for the RCMP to continue to remain What is it about these Conservatives that makes them believe that silent for fear of reprisal. The existing system is not working at all. the rules do not apply to them? Is it really possible that they still do not understand that they are not above the law? Can the minister reassure us and confirm that these women did the Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of right thing by coming forward? Can he also tell us where this much- Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of promised change in RCMP culture is? June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17711

Oral Questions [English] I am happy to report that Donna Lackie, who is the National Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister President of the Government Services Union, has said that we are of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we take the issue of moving in the right direction. She said, “We're confident the harassment within the RCMP, and specifically sexual harassment, measures they have put in place will ensure the proper training has very seriously. That is why our government introduced Bill C-42, the been done...so employees can do their job safely ” enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police accountability act, to, among other things, modernize and speed up the process whereby ● (1450) complaints like this can be handled. [Translation] Sadly, the NDP opposed this important piece of legislation, which was supported by police organizations, by civil liberties within B.C. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): and by justice ministers across the country. The New Democrats Mr. Speaker, a man is dead because Public Works and Government speak about accountability. They speak about stopping sexual Services Canada used an unqualified subcontractor. This situation is harassment, but do nothing. ultimately the department's responsibility. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we heard from witness after witness that Bill C-42 is not enough to put an end to A former Public Works and Government Services Canada sexual harassment in the RCMP and the government knows that. The employee warned his supervisors about a problem with the RCMP members will not feel comfortable coming forward, subcontractors that had been hired. Safety codes had been violated. especially when other complaints are being questioned publicly and in the media. Even though Public Works and Government Services Canada has been charged, the company involved could not be brought to justice Public confidence in the RCMP must be restored, but Canadians simply because the incident occurred on federal property. need to see change. Will the minister show leadership and establish an out-of-court process to resolve these very serious harassment It is high time the government stopped stalling and provided better complaints? protection for people working on federal property. Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was at every committee When will the government change the law to better protect meeting that covered this bill. I do not think that member was. I can workers? say that the witnesses overwhelmingly supported this legislation. What we have done is put in place not only a process whereby [English] complaints can be handled more quickly, but also a new civilian review commission that can handle complaints from within the Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Govern- RCMP as well as from out of the RCMP. ment Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the mandate of Public Works and the work that The opposition members offer no solutions. All they do is oppose we could do, I instructed my department in every way to work with good, sound legislation. the union and with the investigation, with our labour department. As I said, we have introduced a number of enhanced measures to make *** sure that this does not happen again. We have worked closely with PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES the union. The head of the union did say that she feels confident that the measures we have put in place will ensure that the proper training Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. has been done, that the programs and policies are now in place to Speaker, not only has Public Works been charged, and is soon to make sure that employees are working in a safe environment. That is be sentenced, in the case of the boiler explosion that killed and what matters. injured workers, but it has been revealed that failure to obey health and safety laws is systemic. The truth is out on a pattern of neglect for repeated warnings about unqualified contractors, code violations, *** and reports by both workers and health and safety officers. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE The buck stops with the minister. When can we expect the minister to make compliance with worker safety a priority? Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Govern- crowd-sourced over 3,000 questions from Canadians across the ment Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. country for the Prime Minister on economic challenges facing the Speaker, our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to the family of middle class. I want to ask the Prime Minister a question I received the deceased from the Cliff plant incident. Since this incident we from Dustin in Calgary. His question is specifically about his EI have made sure that the department has implemented a number of premiums, which are rising by $50 this year, a direct payroll tax additional health and safety measures, including enhancing training increase. and management oversight, conducting a review of the occupational health and safety training program, and investing in third-party Dustin would like to know why the Prime Minister chose to raise procedural reviews. EI premiums for him and every other working Canadian? 17712 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Oral Questions Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of will take no lessons from the NDP on protecting the interests of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Canadians. While the NDP supports giving special breaks to Chinese Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, manufacturers, it has no interest in protecting Canadians who are employment insurance premiums are paid by both workers and investing in China. employers. This agreement will give Canadian investors in China the same Let us be very clear. We are focused on making sure that types of protections that foreign investors have long had in Canada. employment insurance is available for those who need it when they, Just once, the NDP should stand up for the interests of Canadians. through no fault of their own, are not able to be employed. More ● (1455) importantly, we are focused on ensuring that Canadians are connected to jobs so that they have the right skills in the right [Translation] place so that they can provide for their families. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Bas- I encourage the member opposite to get on board and support the ques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand whether the Canada job grant and our numerous other initiatives in economic minister does not want to answer the question or whether he simply action plan 2013. cannot. I will try again. *** The Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement has [Translation] been ready for ratification since November 10, but the Conservatives have not yet ratified it. GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like If, as the Conservatives claim, there is no problem with the to ask the Prime Minister another question, this one from Monique in agreement, why have they not yet ratified it? Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix. [English] Monique would like to know how the government can justify Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister spending Canadians' money on negative partisan advertising. She for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. does not think that is productive for anyone, except the Conservative Canadian investors have applauded this agreement because it Party, and she thinks that there are many other causes that would be protects their interests. It is a fully reciprocal agreement that ensures worthy of her tax money and that would help Canadians. that Canadians have a level playing field on which to compete, but of course, the NDP supports measures that tilt the balance in favour of She wants to know why the Prime Minister is wasting her tax Chinese exports. dollars on negative partisan advertising. Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and It is a shame the NDP is more interested in standing up for Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Chinese manufacturers than for Canadian investors. Shame on them. Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank Monique for her question. *** I will say that advertising is an essential means for informing FOOD SAFETY Canadians about important issues, such as temporary stimulus Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our measures, tax credits and public health issues. government is committed to providing safe food for Canadians. In [English] fact, since 2006, our government has invested over half a billion new dollars in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and has hired over I would say, of course, that our rates of advertising are much lower 750 net new inspectors. than those of the previous Liberal government, and we will continue to do so to make sure that the taxpayer is defended. Our government has also passed the Safe Food for Canadians Act and brought in new E. coli controls. We have also put in place an *** independent expert panel to look into the events of last fall, INTERNATIONAL TRADE stemming from the XL beef plant in Brooks, Alberta. Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, the Hupacasath First Nation is in court, challenging the Can the Minister of Agriculture please update the House on that legality of the Canada-China FIPA. Despite a constitutional panel and its findings? obligation to consult first nations, the Conservative government Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and rammed through this agreement with no talks whatsoever. Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member for Medicine Hat knows that Canadian families must have The Prime Minister signed this deal on September 9, 2012. While confidence in our food safety system. the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the serious problems with this agreement nine months later, the government still has not ratified Following the recall of XL Foods last fall, this government it. Why not? initiated an independent review panel. I met with that panel earlier Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister today. I am pleased to say I will be tabling that report in the House for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government this afternoon. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17713

Oral Questions Let me be clear. Our government accepts the recommendations ● (1500) that the panel has made. We will continue to work on bolstering our food safety system by improving inspections, strengthening food TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY safety rules and recalls and improving communications of Canadian Mrs. Stella Ambler (Mississauga South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, consumers and passing things like Bill S-11. yesterday the Liberal Party's industry critic criticized our govern- ment's decision to promote competition so Canadian consumers *** could benefit from more choices and lower wireless prices. GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING Frankly, this is not surprising. After all, the Liberal leader does not Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. have to look far to find inspiration in the 1970s era Liberal Speaker, the government's own research shows its ads are monopolies that hurt the economy and Canadians. ineffective, yet tonight, Conservative MPs will approve spending $24 million more in wasteful and ineffective advertising, including By contrast, will the Minister of Industry explain to the House $140,000 for a single 30-second ad. how our government's decision will benefit consumers? One report last year showed that 92% of people who saw the ad [Translation] did nothing at all in reaction. Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from How could the government possibly justify spending millions Mississauga South for her very relevant question. more on advertising that it knows does not provide any useful information to Canadians? [English] Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and It was clear yesterday that the Liberal Party was more comfortable Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for with the status quo in the telecom industry than real progress. Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. Liberals have made it clear that they stand against Canadian member, as is consistent with the public accounts, that advertising consumers and for higher prices and less choice. represents 0.3% of government spending, less than that in fact. It is the responsibility of governments to communicate on important Meanwhile our government sent a bold, clear message to the programs and services available to Canadians. industry. In that sense, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said loud and clear that our government stood up for wireless consumers. Unlike the previous Liberal government, when we allocate money to advertising, it actually goes to advertising. [Translation] *** The Conservative government will not hesitate to use all of the tools at its disposal to promote healthier competition and to protect PENSIONS Canadian consumers in this industry. Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speak- *** er, Conservatives have a short memory when it comes to their promises. AIR TRANSPORTATION Last December, the Minister of Finance made a clear commitment Mr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week, the to meet with his provincial counterparts this month about CPP and Canadian Transportation Agency concluded that compensation QPP. CPP and QPP are the backbone of out pension system. Our offered to Air Canada customers bumped from overbooked flights communities and all Canadians will benefit from CPP-QPP is insufficient. That compensation would have been sufficient if the expansion. Conservatives had supported Bill C-459. Will the minister tell us when this meeting is happening and will Why do the Conservatives feel that Canadian passengers do not he be keeping his promises to strengthen CPP and QPP? deserve the same protection as Europeans and Americans? Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Once Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and again, Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that the Canada Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of pension plan has shared jurisdiction between the provinces. We Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Minister of Intergovern- cannot arbitrarily make any changes to the Canada pension plan mental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council for without consulting with the provinces. Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's airline industry is based on a user-pay principle. Other countries have chosen different options, We continue to do that, but not all the provinces are in support but here, people who use the air transportation system pay for its now of expanding the Canada pension plan, but they were all in services. We have excellent airline service in our country. support of putting in place a framework for the pooled registered pension plan. We will continue to support airlines across the country by putting in place infrastructure, security measures and regulations that allow We think that is a good idea, but apparently the NDP members do them to run a successful business. not. They do not think we should help people have another option for savings, because they voted against that in the House. Our system operates on a user-pay principle. 17714 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Private Members' Business THE SENATE ● (1505) Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a shame Speaker, when the government ran out of ways to cover up the of mine, but I am not an MP from Calgary. I am the MP for Papineau Senate expense scandal, it asked the Auditor General to look into the and neither question was from a constituent. The questions were senators' shady claims. from Canadians who had questions they wanted the Prime Minister to answer. That is part of our jobs as members of Parliament. In 2010, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to immediately Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I will not state the obvious, agree to the request by former auditor general Sheila Fraser to that he does not think he represents Canadians but only one conduct such an audit for the House of Commons. constituency in the city of Montreal. However, I will point out that Why stop there? Why not ensure that the Auditor General can go the reference means a question of any representative type on behalf over senators' and members' expenses with a fine-toothed comb and of a Canadian. We are here in our role, as the Speaker has ruled make it a regular, statutory review? clearly in the past, to ask questions, not to ask representative questions on behalf of individual Canadians. Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as our colleague well Mr. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, members in the House have knows, last week, we took very responsible measures to protect the asked many times of the Prime Minister why he is choosing to raise taxpayers' interests by adopting 11 tough new rules. payroll taxes and why he is choosing to spend public funds on accounts. These are questions Canadians have. We will continue in that vein by making changes to the Senate. [Translation] We will also proceed with bigger changes: having senators elected or abolishing the Senate, if necessary, and changing the length of The Speaker: On another point of order, the hon. member for senators' terms. Richmond—Arthabaska. Mr. André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on another point That is the direction the Conservative government is taking. We of order. will do what is right for the taxpayers. I would like to give the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his *** government the chance to make amends since he did not really [English] provide a clear answer as to whether the government has decided to allow the Auditor General to review the management of the Senate PRESENCE IN GALLERY as a result of the spending scandal. The Speaker: I would like draw the attention of hon. members to For the sake of consistency and transparency, I seek unanimous the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the consent for the following: Kingdom of Lesotho, led by the Hon. Sephiri Enoch Motanyane, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Lesotho. That this House allow the Auditor General to conduct regular, statutory audits of the expenditures of senators and MPs. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! [English] *** The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent POINTS OF ORDER of the House?

ORAL QUESTIONS Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House Some hon. members: No. of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a number of questions that were raised by the leader of the Liberal Party, which were clearly in contravention of the rules of this place. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS I know he is somewhat new here and is not entirely familiar yet [English] with the rules, but when we look at the good book, O'Brien and Bosc, we will find at pages 502 and 503 a reference to questions in LANGUAGE SKILLS ACT question period. A question should not be a representation and, The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion furthermore, it should not be a question from a constituent. This has that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the third been dealt with on occasion by Speakers of the House. For example, time and passed. in early 1994, the member for Fraser Valley West asked the finance minister a question on behalf of one of his constituents and Speaker The Speaker: Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22 Parent advised that was out of order. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-419. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you not permit such questions and [Translation] that you ask the hon. member to withdraw his inappropriate context or otherwise acknowledge he is just simply in over his head. Call in the members. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17715

Private Members' Business ● (1515) Lake Lamoureux Lapointe Larose [English] Latendresse Lauzon Laverdière Lebel (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) following division:) Leitch Lemieux Leslie Leung (Division No. 727) Liu Lizon Lukiwski Lunney YEAS MacAulay MacKenzie Mai Marston Members Martin Masse Adler Aglukkaq Mathyssen May Albas Albrecht Mayes McCallum Alexander Allen (Welland) McColeman McGuinty Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Allison McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Ambler Ambrose Menegakis Menzies Andrews Angus Merrifield Michaud Armstrong Ashfield Ashton Aspin Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Atamanenko Aubin Moore (Fundy Royal) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Ayala Baird Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Bateman Bélanger Mourani Mulcair Bellavance Bennett Nantel Nash Benoit Bergen Nicholls Nicholson Bernier Bezan Norlock Nunez-Melo Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Obhrai O'Connor Blaney Block Oliver O'Neill Gordon Borg Boughen Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Opitz O'Toole Braid Breitkreuz Pacetti Papillon Brison Brosseau Paradis Patry Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Péclet Perreault Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Pilon Plamondon Butt Byrne Poilievre Preston Calandra Calkins Quach Rafferty Cannan Carmichael Raitt Rajotte Caron Carrie Rankin Ravignat Casey Cash Charlton Chisholm Raynault Regan Chisu Chong Reid Rempel Choquette Chow Richards Rickford Christopherson Clarke Ritz Rousseau Cleary Clement Saganash Sandhu Comartin Côté Saxton Scarpaleggia Cotler Crockatt Scott Seeback Crowder Cullen Sellah Sgro Cuzner Daniel Davidson Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Shea Shipley Davies (Vancouver East) Day Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Dechert Del Mastro sor) Devolin Dewar Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Dionne Labelle Donnelly Smith Sopuck Doré Lefebvre Dreeshen Stanton St-Denis Dubé Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Stewart Stoffer Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Storseth Strahl Dusseault Dykstra Sullivan Sweet Easter Eyking Tilson Toet Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Toews Toone Fletcher Foote Tremblay Trottier Freeman Fry Trudeau Truppe Galipeau Gallant Turmel Tweed Garneau Genest Uppal Valcourt Genest-Jourdain Giguère Valeriote Van Kesteren Gill Glover Van Loan Wallace Godin Goguen Warkentin Watson Goodyear Gosal Weston (Saint John) Wilks Gourde Gravelle Grewal Groguhé Williamson Wong Harper Harris (St. John's East) Woodworth Yelich Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Hayes Hiebert Zimmer–— 271 Hillyer Holder Hsu Hughes NAYS Hyer Jacob Nil Jean Jones Julian Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) PAIRED Kellway Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Nil Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. 17716 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Private Members' Business

Harris (St. John's East) Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) (Bill read the third time and passed) Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer *** Hsu Hughes Hyer Jacob AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE (PRIZE James Jean FIGHTS) Jones Julian Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Karygiannis The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kellway Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent that Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), be Kerr Komarnicki read the third time and passed. Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lamoureux Lapointe The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the Larose Latendresse deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of the bill. Lauzon Laverdière Lebel LeBlanc (Beauséjour) ● (1525) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leitch Lemieux Leslie (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Leung Liu following division:) Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney (Division No. 728) MacAulay MacKenzie Mai Marston YEAS Martin Masse Mathyssen May Members McCallum McColeman McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Adler Aglukkaq Albas Alexander McLeod Menegakis Allen (Welland) Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Menzies Merrifield Allison Ambrose Michaud Miller Anders Anderson Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Andrews Angus Moore (Fundy Royal) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Armstrong Ashfield Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Ashton Aspin Mourani Mulcair Atamanenko Aubin Nantel Nash Ayala Baird Nicholls Nicholson Bateman Bélanger Norlock Nunez-Melo Bellavance Benoit Obhrai O'Connor Bergen Bernier Oliver O'Neill Gordon Bezan Blanchette Opitz O'Toole Blanchette-Lamothe Blaney Pacetti Papillon Block Borg Paradis Patry Boughen Boulerice Payne Péclet Boutin-Sweet Braid Perreault Pilon Breitkreuz Brosseau Plamondon Poilievre Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Preston Quach Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Rafferty Raitt Butt Byrne Rajotte Rankin Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Ravignat Raynault Caron Carrie Regan Reid Casey Cash Rempel Richards Charlton Chisholm Rickford Ritz Chisu Choquette Rousseau Saganash Chow Christopherson Sandhu Saxton Clarke Cleary Scarpaleggia Scott Clement Comartin Seeback Sellah Côté Cotler Sgro Shea Crockatt Crowder Shipley Shory Cullen Cuzner Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Daniel Davidson Sims (Newton—North Delta) Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Sitsabaiesan Smith Day Dechert Sopuck Stanton Del Mastro Devolin St-Denis Stewart Dewar Dionne Labelle Stoffer Storseth Doré Lefebvre Dreeshen Strahl Sullivan Dubé Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Sweet Tilson Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Toet Toews Dusseault Dykstra Toone Tremblay Easter Eyking Trottier Trudeau Fantino Fast Truppe Turmel Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Fletcher Foote Tweed Uppal Fortin Freeman Valcourt Valeriote Gallant Garneau Van Kesteren Van Loan Genest Genest-Jourdain Wallace Warawa Giguère Gill Warkentin Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Glover Godin Sky Country) Goguen Goodyear Weston (Saint John) Wilks Gosal Gourde Williamson Wong Gravelle Grewal Yelich Young (Vancouver South) Groguhé Harper Zimmer–— 267 June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17717

Routine Proceedings NAYS Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Members Lobb Lukiwski Albrecht Ambler Lunney MacKenzie Chong Galipeau Mayes McColeman Holder Mayes McLeod Menegakis Watson Woodworth Menzies Merrifield Young (Oakville)–— 9 Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Moore (Fundy Royal) Mourani PAIRED Nicholson Norlock Nil Obhrai O'Connor The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole (Bill read the third time and passed) Paradis Patry Payne Plamondon *** Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte RESPECTING FAMILIES OF MURDERED AND Reid Rempel BRUTALIZED PERSONS ACT Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Seeback Shea Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck ineligibility), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Stanton Storseth The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Toews Trottier Bill C-478 under private members' business. Truppe Tweed ● (1530) Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson following division:) Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) (Division No. 729) Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth YEAS Yelich Young (Oakville) Members Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer–— 156

Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht NAYS Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Nil Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders PAIRED Anderson Armstrong Nil Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill Bellavance Benoit Bergen Bernier stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Bezan Blaney Rights. Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee) Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Chisu Chong Clarke Clement [English] Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER OF CANADA Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Fantino The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada regarding returning officers. Flaherty Fletcher This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Fortin Galipeau Gill Glover Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Goguen Goodyear Gosal Gourde *** Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn XL FOODS INC. BEEF RECALL 2012 Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Holder Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake officials languages, the independent review of XL Foods Inc. beef Lauzon Lebel recall 2012. 17718 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Routine Proceedings GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS secret ballot vote to decide who represents them at the bargaining Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of table. the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions. *** CRACKING DOWN ON ORGANIZED CRIME AND *** TERRORISM ACT INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) moved Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I for leave to introduce Bill C-526, An Act to amend the Criminal have two reports to present to the House on behalf of the Canada- Code (sentencing). Europe Parliamentary Association. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private Pursuant to Standing Order 34, the first report I have the honour to member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code, also entitled the present to the House, in both official languages, is the report of the “cracking down on organized crime and terrorism act”. Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Associa- It has been identified by this Parliament, the RCMP and criminal tion respecting its participation in a parliamentary mission to the law experts that organized crime is a serious problem in Canada and Republic of Lithuania, the next country to hold the rotating around the world. Currently, offences connected with organized presidency of the Council of Europe, the European Union and the crime and terrorism are considered aggravating factors during European Parliament, held in Vilnius, Lithuania, and Brussels, sentencing. Belgium, from April 3 to 9, 2013. Bill C-526 would protect Canadians further by creating a new The second report that I wish to present to the House, pursuant to subcategory of serious aggravating factors and, secondly, providing Standing Order 34, in both official languages, is the report of the greater direction and additional tools to judges to identify and punish Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Associa- gang members, organized criminals and terrorists. tion respecting its participation in the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, held in The purpose of the bill is to ensure that those committing a Washington, D.C., in the United States of America, from March criminal offence in collusion with others, and those committing acts 12 to 13, 2013. of terrorism, are severely punished. *** (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE *** PUBLIC ACCOUNTS TACKLING CONTRABAND TOBACCO ACT Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, General of Canada, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in S-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband relation to its study “Public Accounts of Canada, 2012”. tobacco). (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time) Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive *** response to this report. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE *** FINANCE ● (1535) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, EMPLOYEES' VOTING RIGHTS ACT there have been discussions among the parties, and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the I move: Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public That, in relation to its study on income inequality, the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to continue its deliberations beyond Thursday, June 13, 2013, Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — and to present its report no later than Thursday, October 31, 2013. bargaining agent). (Motion agreed to) He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my private member's bill. *** IRAN Bill C-525 would provide necessary amendments to the certifica- tion and decertification of a bargaining agent by way of a mandatory Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there have secret ballot vote based on a majority. been consultations among parties, and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, jointly For far too long the federal legislation has lagged behind that of seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake and the hon. our provincial counterparts, and workers deserve the right to have a member for Mount Royal. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17719

Routine Proceedings I move: park's boundaries, legislation and strategic plan; and, include first nations and Friends of the Rouge Watershed on an advisory board. That, this House condemn the mass murder of political prisoners in Iran in the summer of 1988 as a crime against humanity, honours the memory of the victims buried in the mass graves at Khavaran cemetery and other locations in Iran, and establishes September 1 as a day of solidarity with political prisoners in Iran. IMPAIRED DRIVING (Motion agreed to) *** Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table from British Columbians throughout metro PETITIONS Vancouver. The petitioners call on Parliament to acknowledge that SEX SELECTION current impaired driving laws are too lenient and they request Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. tougher laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for those Speaker, I have the honour to present six sets of petitions today persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. from constituents from the London area, Woodstock, Welland, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Toronto. SEARCH AND RESCUE All of these petitioners are asking to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that millions of girls have been lost through sex-selective pregnancy termination, which creates a global Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. gender imbalance and causes girls to be trafficked into prostitution. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario and across Ontario protesting Therefore, the petitioners are asking Parliament to condemn the closure of the Thunder Bay Marine Communications and Traffic discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective Service centre. This centre is crucial for the safety of boaters and pregnancy termination. marine traffic on lakes and rivers, all the way from Lake Winnipeg ● (1540) downstream through Lake Superior to Lake Huron. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am The petitioners are asking that the House reverse the government's happy to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of decision to close the centre, which has been a critical institution in residents of New Brunswick and other provinces in Atlantic Canada. the northern marine safety community for the past 104 years. They are objecting to the very wrong-spirited and mean-spirited changes that the government is making to employment insurance, particularly as it impacts seasonal industries and those who work in CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION seasonal industries. The petitioners are asking this House and the government to Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am change direction and to rescind these changes to employment pleased to present a petition from a number of constituents from insurance to ensure that economic progress and fairness can continue Prince Edward Island. They wish to indicate to the House that the in areas dependent on seasonal work. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as a national public broad- caster, plays an important role in reflecting Canada and its regions to VENEZUELA national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC): those regions. Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of Venezuelan Canadians residing in Ontario. They are asking to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the civil rights and electoral They call upon the Government of Canada to maintain stable, rights of Venezuelan people have been shamefully violated since the predictable, long-term core funding to the public broadcaster, last presidential election. The petitioners are asking our government, including CBC Radio and Radio-Canada, in support of their unique the champions of democracy, to take a strong position regarding this and critical role. matter, and call for a peaceful and democratic resolution to the crisis in Venezuela. PEACE NATIONAL PARKS Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding Rouge national park. The Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I petitioners call on the government to protect the 100-square- am presenting a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians, mostly kilometre public land assembly with a healthy and sustainable from western Quebec and eastern Ontario, who are among the more Rouge national park; ensure that the Rouge national park than one million Canadians who actively support the creation of a implements and strengthens the ecological visions and policies of federal department of peace. They call upon the government to previously approved Rouge park plans; conduct a rational, scientific create such a department to provide leadership toward ensuring the and transparent public planning process to create Rouge national government's commitment to the promotion of peace worldwide. 17720 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Privilege NATIONAL PARKS Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, The Speaker: The Chair has notice of a question of privilege it is an honour to rise today to present a petition from approximately from the hon. member for Avalon. 650 petitioners from the Toronto area, but including from a region extending to Burlington, St. Catharines and Oakville. They are *** petitioning the House to pay attention to the implementation of the PRIVILEGE vision of a Rouge Valley national park worthy of the name. ELECTIONS CANADA I started working on the Rouge issue back in the 1980s, and I am Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a disheartened to find that the current plans and the May 2012 question of privilege to discuss a matter of great importance relating operating plan and vision for the park might even leave the national to two Conservative MPs and whether they should currently be park with less protection than it had under provincial control. sitting in the House of Commons. The petitioners ask for a full, rational planning process and We learned recently that the Chief Electoral Officer sent you a consultation with first nations and with Friends of the Rouge so that notice, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the two Conservative MPs in we can respect the ecological integrity and move forward with the question, specifically the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the government's vision of a national park in the Rouge Valley. member for Saint Boniface, indicating that he had made requests for ● (1545) corrections to their electoral campaign returns and that the corrections requested had not been made. MINING INDUSTRY Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I Before I start my arguments, I would like to quote the Canada am pleased to table today a petition from students from a north end Elections Act, which reads, in subsection 463(2): Winnipeg school dealing with the issue of corporate social An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 responsibility and Canadian companies. Petitioners are asking that or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are the House of Commons legislate that the standards for Canadian provided or made, as the case may be. mining companies operating outside of Canada be the same as the standards they must reach operating inside of Canada. It is quite clear that this subsection of the Canada Elections Act would require that these two members be suspended immediately, *** because the act says that they are to be suspended until the correction QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS requested by the Chief Electoral Officer is made. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of I understand that they may disagree with Elections Canada on the the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, if substance of their filings and that they have both made applications question no. 1317 could be made an order for return, this return to the Federal Court on this matter. However, this does not change would be tabled immediately. the fact that they should not sit or vote in the House until the matter is rectified, either by Elections Canada or by the Federal Court. The Speaker: Is that agreed? The precedence on this matter is clear. On March 1, 1966, in Some hon. members: Agreed. dealing with a similar question of privilege, Speaker Lamoureux [Text] ruled: (a) That, even if there is a penalty provision in section 63 of the Canada Elections Question No. 1317—Mr. Scott Simms: Act and whatever may be the terms of the order made by the judge pursuant to the With regard to Bill C-11 from the 1st session of the 38th Parliament, “An Act to said section in allowing an authorized excuse, the house is still the sole judge of establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, its own proceedings, and for the purposes of determining on a right to be including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings”, what are the exercised within the house itself which, in this particular case, is the right of one details of all codes of conduct that have been implemented, considered, modified, or hon. member to sit and to vote, the house alone can interpret the relevant statute. withdrawn by the government under Chapter 46, clauses 5 through 7, of the bill since (b) That the procedure followed in 1875 with regard to the precedent above it received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005, and what is the current status of referred to, which bears a resemblance to the case before us, seems to me to each code of conduct? indicate that the question was dealt with at the time as being of the nature of a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. (Return tabled) (c) That it is not within the competence of the Speaker to decide as to the question of substance or as to the disallowance of a vote, and that such decisions are to be [English] made by the house itself. Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. This ruling makes it perfectly clear that the House, not the courts, and with due respect, not the Speaker, determines whether the *** member for Saint Boniface and the member for Selkirk—Interlake have the right to sit in the House. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions As for how this matter should be addressed, we are of the view for the production of papers be allowed to stand. that the question on this matter should be put to the House. According to Maingot, 2nd edition, on page 188, in reference to and The Speaker: Is that agreed? from the same ruling, it says: June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17721

Privilege [T]he Speaker said that the right of the Member for Montmagny—L'Islet to vote only avenue that exists, which is to have the issue resolved in the subsequent to the date when he should have paid his election expenses was a proper courts. subject of privilege, but that the House must decide that issue, and whether his votes should be disallowed. The Member who raised the matter did not move the usual motion to refer it to the committee and no further proceedings were taken. That is where the matter sits right now. It is a quite simple dispute. It is certainly not the kind of question of accounting interpretation Again, on page 247 of Maingot, 2nd edition, it says: that I think a reasonable person would say would justify a member A...procedure akin to "privilege" (because it would be given precedence and being suspended from being able to participate in the House, having discussed without delay) would be the case of whether a Member was disqualified to been duly elected by the voters. sit and ineligible to vote. These matters may only be resolved ultimately by the House, and they are "privilege" matters because the House has the power to rule that a Member is ineligible to sit and vote, and to expel the Member. From that perspective, knowing how simple that issue is and also the legal framework in which you are working, the decision you It goes on to say: have taken to allow that legal process to unfold to resolve the issue, The determination of whether a Member is ineligible to sit and vote is a matter to at which point the question of how it would function under the act be initiated without notice and would be given precedence by its very nature. might come into play, is an appropriate one. Therefore, I do not see particular merit in the suggestion, in advance of the resolution of the The facts are clear. The members have not made the proper filings issue and in advance of the court deciding on the interpretation of the or corrections, as requested by Elections Canada. fixed costs of billboards, that it has reached a level such that the ● (1550) member is asking you to intervene. I would suggest that it is obviously very premature. Another process is under way, and it The act plainly states: would not be your place as Speaker to interpret that process and An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 make a ruling when it is before the courts. or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made.... That being said, I think the hon. members may wish to come back here and make further submissions on the points that have been The review by the Federal Court does not provide relief from this raised and if the fashion in which it has unfolded has offended their section of the Canada Elections Act. Precedent clearly states that it is own privileges. for the House to determine the member's eligibility to sit and vote in the House, not the Federal Court and not the Speaker. As such, I You, as the Speaker, I think have conducted yourself in the fashion would ask that members of the House be provided the letter sent to that the rules of this place suggest, that being as the guardian of the the Speaker by Elections Canada on this matter. privileges of the members of this place. The way in which you have responded to this issue has been the appropriate response in those This goes to the heart of our democracy. The fact that we are all circumstances. elected to this place on the same footing, by the same rules and on an even playing field for all provides for a fair election to the House of As I said, the hon. members will likely return with further Commons. submissions. If Elections Canada, our independent elections agency, determines ● (1555) that rules have not been followed or have been broken, there are Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, consequences. Those consequences are that those members do not speaking on behalf of the official opposition, we would also like to deserve the right to sit or vote in this House as members. reserve the right to come back to this as soon as possible and to let you know when that would be. Finally, if you do find that there is a breach of privilege, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion. It is true what the member for Avalon said. The provisions of Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House section 463(2) do not make specific reference to an appeal process or of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that the hon. a court process as trumping the section. The section is a mandatory members from Saint Boniface and Selkirk—Interlake may wish to section, but the approach you have taken also obviously has its address this more fully, once they have an opportunity, and the merit. Therefore, we would much prefer to reserve for the moment related issue of whether it is their privileges that have been offended and come back to address the matter. by what has unfolded here. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it Briefly speaking, my understanding of the issue is that the is important to note that while the Conservative members may try to individuals in question are being asked to account twice for a single argue that they have filed the appropriate documents and it is only campaign expense, that being the billboards that were put up on a the substance of those documents that is in dispute, that point is in permanent basis. The rules in the past have always been that if there fact irrelevant. is spending that transfers over from an election period to a non- election period, any costs that are fixed are pro-rated. Thinking strictly in terms of Elections Canada's legislation, subsection 463(2) uses the word “or”, not “and”, where it says: Apparently, Elections Canada wishes to take a new interpretation ....or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized of this. The members are disputing this new interpretation, which has by 458(1) shall not continue to sit.... not been applied, certainly in my own experience and that of others in the past. As such, the members have availed themselves of the The word “or” is disjunctive, not conjunctive. 17722 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Mr. Speaker, this puts you in a position where you are bound to party in power. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have comply with the request of the Chief Electoral Officer. To do both appointed defeated candidates, campaign managers, close anything less will constitute a breach of the privileges of the rest of friends and party donors to the Senate. us in the House and, worse, bring the proper application of the Canada Elections Act and our willingness to abide by it into We can talk at length about the democratic deficiencies of this disrepute. outdated institution, but as the Treasury Board critic, I will let my The Speaker: I look forward to further submissions on this colleagues add their important contribution to the debate and focus question. We will move on now to orders of the day. instead on the financial side of the issue. Before moving this motion I asked myself the following questions: is the Senate a good deal? Is the Senate a good investment GOVERNMENT ORDERS for Canadian taxpayers? I will show in the rest of my speech that the answer to these questions is a categorical no. [English] BUSINESS OF SUPPLY The reality is that the Senate costs Canadians a lot of money, more than $90 million a year. While the Conservatives have reduced the OPPOSITION MOTION—THE SENATE House of Commons budget, the budget of the duly elected members, Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) moved: they have just increased the Senate budget to a total of $92.5 million. That all funding should cease to be provided to the Senate beginning on July 1, 2013. We are spending $92.5 million for an upper chamber when the The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the provincial senates have been abolished since 1968. The provinces deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by are getting along quite well without a senate. No one has convinced 24 minutes. me that the difference between federal and provincial governance is Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending enough to justify spending $92 million for a senate. June 23, 2013, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, I would also remind Canadians that the senators worked only 71 do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now? days last year, roughly three months out of 12, and that they earn a salary of more than $130,000 a year, in addition to all their benefits. Some hon. members: Agreed. What is more, 31 senators were absent for 25% of those 71 working [Translation] days. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time As incredible as it may seem, it takes the annual taxes paid by with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. more than 8,000 families to pay for the Senate. Just by way of I am pleased to rise in the House to begin debate on my motion example, the total of other shady expenses, in other words, those regarding funding for the Senate. claimed by Senator Wallin, are equivalent to the federal taxes paid by 28 Canadian families. The senator's $350,000 in travel expenses As hon. members know, the Senate dates back to the time of would be enough to pay for old age security for 57 seniors for one Confederation. The Fathers of Confederation gave that chamber the year. mission of reviewing and improving legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Senate was also designed to ensure that the Between now and the end of his term, Senator Duffy, who is at the provinces and regions are represented in the federal legislative centre of a scandal, will pocket a further $1.3 million in salary. process. Thus, the Constitution Act of 1867 divides the country into Between now and the end of his term, Mr. Brazeau, who is himself four regions—Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and the involved in a scandal, will earn $7 million. The total future payroll western provinces—and sets out the number of senators that for the senators appointed by the Prime Minister is $116 million. represent each of those regions. ● (1600) That was the vision, but the problem is that the Fathers of Confederation also decided that the Senate would be made up of Senator absenteeism has become a problem. The average number unelected, partisan members. That is the problem. Unfortunately, of days worked by a senator in 2011-12 was only 56, which is not there is a fundamental contradiction between the duties of the Senate even two months of work. and its partisan nature. This contradiction has now become a democratic crisis. We are at a turning point in the history of this [English] institution and the democracy of our country. Today, senators more and more frequently vote along party lines rather than in the interest If that is not convincing enough, several senators are double- of the region that they are supposed to be representing. What is dipping by claiming a residence that they do not really use. more, they refuse to pass bills that were carefully considered by the House and its committees. According to the Constitution, senators must reside in the province they represent. Under section 31 of the Constitution Act Unfortunately, today, many of the senators were appointed to the of 1867, a senator's seat shall become vacant if “he ceases to be Senate not on their merit, but as payback for their loyal service to the qualified in respect of property or of residence”. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17723

Business of Supply Senators must also own a minimum of $4,000 worth of land in In his 2012 audit of Senate expenses, the Auditor General audited their home province, and according to internal regulations at the the housing allowance and travel expense claims for a number of Senate, senators who live more than 100 kilometres from Ottawa are senators. The Auditor General recommended as follows: entitled to be reimbursed for travel expenses and to a $21,000 annual housing allowance. The Senate Administration should ensure that it has sufficient documentation to clearly demonstrate that expenses are appropriate. The problem is that several senators have declared second residences in Ottawa when these residences are actually their We on this side of the House agree with him, but this is like primary places of residence. putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. The problem is that senators are really on a different planet than most Canadians, and we cannot For example, in 2012 Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau expect them to police themselves. declared that his primary residence was in Maniwaki, Quebec, thus enabling him to claim a housing allowance for a secondary residence Here is the proof that the Senate cannot investigate itself. On in the national capital region. Maniwaki is 130 kilometres from February 28, 2013, the Senate committee on internal economy Ottawa. Media reports indicate that the residence in question is in determined at the outcome of its investigation that senators' housing fact the home of Patrick Brazeau's father. Brazeau resigned from the allowances, including those of Mike Duffy, were in compliance with Conservative caucus and is now sitting as an independent. the rules. On May 9, the Deloitte audit and the Senate committee on internal economy's report ordered Senator Brazeau to repay $48,000 in Well, that is convenient. unjustifiable claims. ● (1605) Another Conservative senator, Pamela Wallin, is supposed to represent Saskatchewan, but her primary residence is in Toronto and Let us not forget that the Senate committee on internal economy she holds an Ontario health insurance card. Since 2010 she has removed paragraphs in its report that criticized Mike Duffy because claimed $300,000 worth of travel expenses not related to travel to he had supposedly reimbursed the amount that he owed. her province of origin and has been seen at numerous Conservative fundraising events. No, the institution is outdated and fundamentally anti-democratic and non-elected senators are entrusted with duties similar to those of In question period on February 13, 2013, the Prime Minister elected officials. This is the very definition of redundancy. Its confirmed that he had seen the senator's travel expenses and that they continued existence just cannot pass the test of good value for were normal. money. It is time to solve the issue once and for all. Let us do Canadians and our democracy a favour and let us shut off the tap and However, Deloitte is still examining the senator's expenses. On empty the trough. May 17, 2013, the senator left the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent. Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I talk to my daughter who is five years old. I Mike Duffy is supposed to represent Prince Edward Island, where understand she wants to get something done and yet I have to he owns a cottage, but he does not have a P.E.I. health insurance explain to her that there are rules in place, so if she wants to do card. His primary residence is in Ontario. On March 26, Deloitte something that is not how she can do it. I feel that this is the problem confirmed they had received a letter from Mike Duffy's lawyer with the NDP right now. stating that Duffy had repaid $90,000 and would no longer participate in the audit, and we know how that went. I understand New Democrats want to make some changes to the All of these senators were named by the current Prime Minister, Senate. We are doing that as well and we have a plan to do that. but to show that the problem is not limited to the governing party, What they have is a gimmick and they do not understand that there is Liberal Senator Mac Harb has claimed $31,237 in living expenses a proper way to do things. since 2010. Even though he is supposed to represent the riding of Ottawa Centre in the House of Commons, he has not been living in I would like the ask the hon. member if they are trying to fool Ottawa for a long time and has now confirmed that he lives in Canadians. Or do they just not understand the Constitution? Can he Pembroke, Ontario, a 90-minute drive from Ottawa. tell us whether their gimmick today, their little plan, is even constitutional? Deloitte's audit and the Senate committee on internal economy's report made public on May 9 ordered Mac Harb to repay $51,000, ● (1610) after which the senator resigned from the Liberal caucus in shame. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, what I can tell my hon. These are only examples that we know of, and the secretive way colleague is that all it has been is inaction for the last two years on the Senate functions may very well mean that there are hidden behalf of the Conservative government. Conservatives were elected abuses that we do not know about. These cases may just be the tip of on a promise they would do something about the Senate. What have the iceberg. they done? Nothing. 17724 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the fact that we have an unelected, unaccountable body with the New Democratic Party members have demonstrated once again senators who feel that they are entitled to take money when they that they just do not understand what is important to Canadians want it and how they want it. When they are under pressure, they say today. It is the issue in regard to the Prime Minister's Office and the that maybe they will start providing a few receipts and ask if that $90,000. We have seen that in question period where it is prioritized, would make it go away. That will not make it go away. but New Democrats are off on this tangent in regard to the Senate. They are being a little dishonest because they know full well it takes a constitutional amendment to do what they claim they would like to do some day. This is not an obscure constitutional debating point. We are Can the member provide a list of the provinces that the New talking about an institution in 2013 that is unelected and Democratic Party has actually approached? Does he have any idea of unaccountable to Canadians, that has the power to interfere with how many provinces, according to the Constitution, would be the work of the democratically elected House. The House of required? How many provinces do they have onside with the Commons passed a bill dealing with catastrophic climate change resolution proposed today? because that is what Canadians want action on. It went to the other chamber, the red chamber. It is not called the red chamber just Why is the NDP not dealing with the issue that is on the minds of because of the colour of the carpet. This is the institution of Canadians today, which is the issue related to the Prime Minister's patronage and corruption that was created by the Liberal Party. Office and the $90,000? When that bill went to that place, it was senators who undermined Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, what I do understand is that the democratically elected will of Parliament. we can always count on a Liberal to defend entitlements and patronage. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. That is exactly what their leader did. Canadians deserve better. They deserve that the institution be put to bed. One of the key senators who undermined that bill that was passed Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by the House of Commons to deal with catastrophic climate change the hon. member just heard the Liberal Party tell us that Canadians was Pamela Wallin. Pamela Wallin is one of the rogues' gallery do not care that the Liberal senators have been ripping off the chosen by the Prime Minister. Pamela Wallin also sits on the board Canadian taxpayer for the last 106 years, that it is not important to of directors of a major oil sands development company. Is that not a Canadians. conflict of interest? I ask the people of Canada that. When Pamela Wallin was asked why these unelected and unaccountable senators What does my hon. colleague hear? Does he hear from people monkeywrenched legislation that had been passed by a democrati- who think that people like Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Mac Harb cally elected House, she said that bill was a nuisance. are an absolute disgrace and there needs to be accountability? I know the Liberals will defend it to the bitter end, but what is he hearing from his constituents? Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, from coast to coast to coast, I have had support for this motion from ordinary Canadians. It is not I have talked to senators. Some of them are nice people, some of all that difficult to recognize that spending $92.5 million on a House them are smart people, but they see us as a nuisance. They believe in which the majority of people do not do their job is not worth that their work in the Senate is somehow more important than our taxpayers' money. work. There is at least one NDP private member's bill somewhere that they are all hot and bothered about that they have to deal with. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it Meanwhile, when the Conservative government stripped the seems to me that if the NDP is really serious about the motion today, Navigable Waters Protection Act and stripped environmental I think it is disrespectful to the Supreme Court because the question protection for lakes and rivers across this country, we did not hear is in front of the Supreme Court now, what has to be done if we want a peep from senators. They rolled over like a bunch of obedient to change the Senate in different ways. puppies doing tricks for their political masters. I would say the NDP cannot be serious. If that is the case, we should not be debating it in the House today. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, getting rid of its funding is not an issue that is before the Supreme Court. We are talking about a Senate where the Liberal Party members, though I see now the Conservatives are starting to get in on this, say The motion, and I am sure my hon. colleague has read it, is about that House of Commons MPs are just not bright enough and we do cutting the funding to the Senate, and that is completely possible. not understand that we cannot make changes. I hear that from Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, senators all the time. They are not going to reform themselves I rise in the House today to express the frustration of the people of because they do not think they can be forced to reform. They say it is Canada at an institution that has belligerently refused to reform itself a constitutional issue. We will hear that all day from the Liberals. over the years and is now at the heart of the worst spending scandal They say it is constitutional and we cannot touch it. It is perfectly in Canadian history. Still, we see Liberal and Conservative senators, constitutional for the House of Commons to decide how much and the Liberal Party working with them, trying to deflect people money to appropriate. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17725

Business of Supply Given the abuse of the taxpayers, given what has happened in the This is part of the scam that went on in the Senate and why we other chamber, I say that it is time to turn off the taps. Is there a have to demand some accountability from it. We were told that poor precedent for it? Certainly, there is. We come from the Westminster Mike Duffy just was not all that bright, that he could not fill out a tradition. Did members know that members of the House of Lords do form. That is why he was on the hook for $90,000. not get salaries? No, peers do not get salaries. What they get is a per diem if they show up. Imagine the situation where hacks and party Certainly, if an average Canadian cannot fill out a form and claims pals get to sit in the Senate until they are 75 and cannot be fired. $90,000, they get charged with fraud. However, we were told, They cannot be fired. according to internal audit of the Senate by Senator Tkachuk, Today someone from the media asked me if I was shocked that Senator Olsen and the Liberal senators who were there, that the only Mike Duffy missed half the committee meetings. I said heck no, I problem with Mike Duffy was that he could not figure out where he was shocked that he even showed up. There is no obligation for him lived, so they had to cut him some slack. to show up. Senators cannot be fired. Conservatives are looking at each other and sort of grinning about Patrick Brazeau, a man who On May 9, Marjory LeBreton, Conservative leader in the Senate, has certainly disgraced a public office. He cannot be fired. He is in said that the case was closed, that it was over. It was as if there was there until he is 75. He is a $7 million man. However, if we turn the nothing to see and they were going home. We did not hear a peep out taps off, we can tell Mr. Brazeau he can come back any time as a of the Liberals about that, but they knew what was going on as well. volunteer, just like in the patronage. I hear some squawking from the Liberals asking what the per diem is. Certainly members of the Then we find out, because of the potentially illegal cheque that House of Lords get per diems, but if we turn off the taps, it would was written out of the Prime Minister's Office by Nigel Wright to allow the House of Commons to finally start a discussion with these Mike Duffy, which forced the light back on, that it was not just the unelected and unaccountable cronies. fact that he did not know where he lived, but he could not seem to However, that is not what the other two parties want to do right fill out expense forms. He would turn in an expense form and it now because they have used the Senate to place their party would be rejected. He would turn in another one and it would be organizers. The people that the member for Papineau relies on for rejected. How many times does someone send in improper forms that fundraising sit in the other chamber. They do the party work on the even the Senate rejects without someone saying that there is a of taxpayers' dime. This is the way it has always been and this is still abuse of the public trust. going on. They get to do that regardless of whether Canadians want them to do it or not because they believe Canadians cannot touch That was going on with Mike Duffy. I would be fascinated to hear them. what they say about Pamela Wallin, if we ever finally get that. ● (1615) Maybe the Liberal and Conservative senators will gang up and keep that hidden. We are not talking about constitutional change. We are talking about cutting off the taps. Let us put that to the Canadian people. There are a number of senators in the penalty box right now and The other thing that is really galling, from a democratic point of none of them have responded with honour. The fundamental thing is view, is the belief that in the 21st century Canadians have no ability public honour. We are called here to represent something better than to decide whether they want an unaccountable body. ourselves.

Every now and then, we will see the poor young tour guides who The Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, praised Mac Harb go around the House of Commons. They give a spiel about how the the other day. He said that Mac Harb did the right thing. What did senators are there to defend minorities. I was at lunch the other day Mac Harb do that was so good? The Liberals did not kick him out of and I heard a senator go on about how her job was to defend the caucus. He quit the caucus so he could go after the Senate, go minorities. after his old comrades because he was not going to pay the money. When John A. Macdonald set up the Senate in 1867, he was very concerned about minorities, but he was not worried about women, Patrick Brazeau says that he is not going to pay the money. Mike francophones and gay people. What he was concerned about was the Duffy did not even have to worry about paying the money, because rich people. John A. Macdonald said that there would always be he just called up Nigel Wright and asked him to give me $90,000 or more poor people than rich people and that was why the Senate was he would not pay, so Nigel Wright paid him the $90,000. needed to protect their interests. If the Senate has done one job well over the years, it has certainly looked after the interests of that class Do members think Pamela Wallin is going to easily fork out that of people. money? That will be an interesting one. On the housing scandal, the Liberal and Conservative senators came out and asked how we defined a primary residence. What In 2013, when we have a group people that are defiant, people planet do these guys live on? I go home to Cobalt. I could ask people who cannot be fired and who refuse to be accountable to Canadians if they know where their primary residences are because there are on the most basic things, we do not have to get into a constitutional senators who do not know where their residences are. It is really debate with them, we simply have to say that enough is enough and complicated for them. we are turning off the taps. 17726 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply If they want to come back to us and discuss a role and what would Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, be fair, I am sure we could talk about stuff. We could look at the the member is right. It is about accountability. Earlier today, the situation in England where in the House of Lords, the members get a leader of the Liberal Party of Canada had a proactive approach at per diem. If they do not show up, they do not get paid. We could disclosing expenses. That would have ensured more accountability discuss that. Then it would restore it to the democratically elected for tax dollars, not only for the Senate but also for the House of House to decide what to do with that chamber, because it will not Commons. reform itself. ● (1620) The NDP's official response was that it was too onerous. The NDP Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime wants to tell Canadians that we do not want this type of Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, accountability because it is too onerous. CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is right about a couple of things. First, he is right that Canadians are disappointed and angry. I think I wonder if the member might want to reflect, in terms of that they feel their trust has been betrayed, certainly by what they have spontaneous statement from the New Democratic Party, and heard in the news. I think that is why the NDP has reacted with this recognize that taking a proactive approach for both Houses, the motion today. Senate and the House of Commons, is what is in order and that he would in fact support the leader of the Liberal Party's call for more However, we have a reference right now to the Supreme Court of accountability of tax dollars, and that means taking a more proactive Canada. It asks a number of questions. One is about how the — government could go about reforming the Senate, which is an important question. It also asks conditions under which we would The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for have to satisfy if we were to look at abolishing the Senate. Timmins—James Bay has just a little more than a minute. We have been consistent on that. Certainly I am never going to defend the status quo in the Senate. I know the Liberal leader has Mr. Charlie Angus: Boy, Mr. Speaker, he sounds defensive over done that a number of times recently. I also know he gave Mac Harb there. I think it is cutting close to home. a pat on the shoulder, which I thought was disgraceful Let us go back to the Raymond Lavigne fraud case. He is the I understand the motion the NDP brought forward which, by the Liberal senator who was convicted of fraud. I urge people to Google way, I do not believe, even if the motion were passed, could ever be it. They will see that everything was laid out there in the abuse of undertaken. However, would the member support our government's public trust, and they decided to go back to business as usual. efforts to reform the Senate, if not reform, then abolish it? Will the member support the government in its stated direction? Now what the Liberal leader is trying to do is what the Liberal ● (1625) senators are trying to do, saying “Don't look at us. Look over at the Mr. Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, what we find frustrating is we House of Commons”, and then they accuse us of diverting people's remember when the Conservatives came in and they agreed with the attention by throwing any attention elsewhere. New Democrats on many areas. One was our share of frustration with the Senate. We were promised that action would be taken, but really no action has been taken. I do not know if it is whether the If it had not been for us taking this up issue, the Liberals would be Conservatives do not want to do it or they realize the Senate will not doing the same thing that happened under the Raymond Lavigne do it. Therefore, it is important that the question is put before the fraud case, saying, “You know what? Once people stop looking, Supreme Court. we'll just ignore it and we'll be back to business”. However, we have to send a message now. We cannot keep [Translation] waiting. Because the Liberals keep telling us again and again that it cannot be done. Well, we turn off the taps. I certainly would like to The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to hear from the courts on what we need to do. Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. Also, when the Conservative government came in, it was working member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment In- with the New Democrats on the accountability act. One of the key surance; the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Science and elements of the accountability act that we pushed was for a single Technology. ethics officer for both Houses and that was turned down by the Liberals in the Senate. Now the Senate officer needs permission from the people she will investigate and if she even gets that permission, ● (1630) she has to bring her recommendation to an in camera hearing and it will decide what to release. [English] The Senate ethics officer has gone back into hibernation. There is Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), no accountability. There were attempts to bring accountability and CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me address this NDP gimmick, because that senators blocked it. It is time we take action. really is what it is. That is most obvious. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17727

Business of Supply Our party remains the only party with a serious plan to reform the The NDP has been on every side of the issue. It calls for Senate. Our party leader remains the only party leader with a clear abolishing the Senate, then says it is open for reasonable reforms. plan. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Senate needs to be Then it will not say whether it would appoint its own senators or not, reformed or it needs to be abolished. While the NDP concocts this when it is well known that it would, given the opportunity. last minute motion, with serious constitutional ramifications without even consulting the provinces, our government takes real action such The Supreme Court will provide a ruling on how to reform or as tough new spending oversight for the Senate. That is not anything abolish the Senate. However, given the NDP leader's past criticisms like the NDP window dressing. That is action. of the Supreme Court, I can see why it would rather roll the In fact, as recently as this week, the leader of the government in constitutional dice and hope it has pulled the wool over the eyes of the Senate introduced a motion to call in the Auditor General to Canadians. review Senate expenses. Of course, Liberal senators blocked it, as the Liberal leader continues to justify the status quo in the Senate. ● (1635) The New Democratic Party wants to call open season on Canada's Are the members over there actually intending to go home over constitution and the Liberal Party has its horse blinders on saying the summer and attempt to sell this to their constituents as a real that the status quo is the way that it will go. Canadians want real plan? Is this something that they would really try to sell? Surely, action. there must be a reasonable person on that side who knows full well Empty rhetoric in the case of the NDP and empty ideas in the case that this is not action or a plan. It is simply empty rhetoric. Their own of the Liberals is not action. We believe that the Senate, in its current leader has said that abolition would require profound constitutional state, must change or it must go. It needs to reach its full potential as change and that they have other priorities before opening up the a democratic institution serving Canadians. constitutional debate, yet here we are debating a motion that has no constitutional merit, one that would crack open the Constitution. To find out what we can change, we have taken several questions and proposals straight to the Supreme Court so it can clarify our mandate. The NDP meanwhile has not even tabled a serious or What were the other priorities that the New Democrats had? Was legitimate bill on abolishing the Senate, not one. They know they the other priority to cover up their leader's cash-filled envelope offer cannot get the support of the provinces, yet the New Democrats sit from the former mayor of Laval, someone who faces numerous here today discussing this as if it is something more than an empty charges, including gangsterism and fraud? Why is it just coming to gimmick. Canadians will not be fooled. light now when he kept it to himself for 17 years? Is that the priority? They spent this time to discuss a gimmick when they could have The NDP does not have an interest in actually reforming the used it to talk about the Canadian economy, something important to Senate. It does not have an interest in talking to the provinces. every Canadian and that affects us all. Instead, it wants to ram through a poorly thought out gimmick that proves that it lacks the basic understanding of how our democracy I can understand why they would not want to discuss their plans works. for the economy either. They are much like their proposal today. Let us look at this concoction that the NDP has tabled today. The NDP wants to halt all funding to the Senate by Canada Day. It A $21-billion carbon tax. Maybe that is a tougher sell than today's believes the Senate and the people who work there are rotten to the concoction, but Canadians deserve to know what that means for core. It is a broad brush. Let us pretend we have halted funding. them. It means essentially a tax on everything, on gas, on groceries, a What happens then? Legislation from the House still needs to pass in tax on it all. It would kill jobs and hurt our economy. I would not the other chamber. want to spend the summer trying to sell that either. I just cannot believe the New Democrats are going to stand over there and pretend that this is an actual plan or anything more than Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. We have a what it actually is, just a gimmick. It shows how little they minister who, rather than speaking to the motion, is just rambling all understand about functioning government. It shows how little they over the place. I would like to have you bring him back to order. He understand about our constitution. It shows how foolish they think is supposed to speak relevantly to the bill at hand. I know he is shy Canadians are if they think they will buy this farce. No, Senate about talking about the Senate given all the embarrassments. abolition is not a real goal for the NDP, a distraction maybe, but Regardless, he has to speak to the issue at hand, which is the Senate certainly not a goal. and the Conservatives who have been illegally taking money for expense claims that they should not have received. I hope he will Why would a party serious about a constitutional battle with the address that. provinces over Senate abolition make a caveat in the coalition agreement with the Bloc and the Liberals to have the power to The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the appoint its own senators? The answer is that it is just not serious. intervention on the part of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Why would a party serious about Senate abolition state in its election Westminster. He will know of course, as will the hon. minister, that platform that on top of a carbon tax if it formed government, it certainly relevance is part of the restrictions on debate in the would bar party insiders from being appointed to the Senate? The chamber. Members are to address their remarks to the question that is answer again is, the NDP is just not serious. before the House. 17728 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Having said that, members will know that there is a great deal of Therefore, at a time when the economy is a top concern for liberty given to members to present their arguments and comments in Canadians, when it is so fragile, this is what the opposition members a way that comes around to that question, and of course members want to focus on, taking a wrecking ball to the Constitution. have the time allowed for their remarks to do just that. I am sure the Canadians are concerned about the future of their own finances and hon. minister will be making those connections in the course of his the finances of this country. However, I just cannot connect the dots remarks in the time provided. here. The New Democrats would rather debate a motion that they know has absolutely zero merit, that has absolutely zero chance of The hon. Minister of State (Democratic Reform). being remotely constitutional; a motion that looks like it has been Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, I will continue. I was talking written in their leader's dream diary. It is mind-boggling. Now we about the NDP's $21-billion carbon tax as a priority for them. know the NDP plan. I would not want to sell that. However, what I would want to sell as a government is the leadership of our Prime Minister. In the first What about the third party's plan? What have the Liberals offered quarter of this year the Canadian economy grew by 2.5%. As a up? Well it is the same as all their policies that we heard during the government, our focus is on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. leadership campaign to be sergeant for the third party: nothing. The That is a plan that works. This country has added over 900,000 net Liberals want the status quo. They want to cover their eyes and new jobs. We have had the greatest job growth in the G7. We are pretend the Senate does not need reforming, that somehow the magic saving families over $3,200 a year in taxes. That is something to be of their new leader will make the Senate more accountable because proud of. Under our government, families of four are better off by he said it should be. Besides, why would the Liberal leader attempt more than $3,200 a year. to reform a place that he says is an advantage for Quebec? He wants [Translation] it to remain unelected and unaccountable for no other reason than to The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Does the hon. attempt to divide regions of this country. That is not leadership. That member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord wish to raise a point of order? is just cheap politics. This not about one region being better than the other, as the member for Papineau suggested. It definitely should not Mr. Dany Morin: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. be about defending his Liberal buddies' entitlements, and we cannot allow it to be about the same old, same old. Could you repeat what you said earlier to my Conservative colleague, namely that he must speak about Senate reform, the issue that concerns us, rather than boasting about the Conservative government's record? If that is what he wants to do, he can clearly We have the leader of the NDP proposing a ridiculous motion, and use other means of communication, such as his Twitter and we have the leader of the Liberals sitting tight, careful not to breathe Facebook accounts or the national news media. However, we are too heavily out of fear that it might come across as something that here to discuss a very important issue, that of cutting funding to the resembles an actual policy. Senate. Mr. Speaker, I would be very grateful if you reminded him of what you said a bit earlier, because he apparently did not understand. You We need real proposals. We need a real plan, and clearly ours is might want to repeat it in the other official language. the only serious plan. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his intervention. It is true that I am going to circle back here and let the hon. members digest members' comments and speeches must be relevant and pertain to some of what I have just mentioned. It is such a clear difference the question that is before the House. between where we are and where we all stand. I saw in an article that ● (1640) one of the NDP members was interviewed on this motion and its [English] merits. I was so surprised at how little he understood about the ramifications if this should actually pass. The reporter had him However, I would go on to say again that members are afforded a twisted and turned, and it was just obvious that his leader sent him great deal of liberty in terms of how they present their arguments. I out there to defend what is indefensible. have been listening to the hon. minister. It is my understanding that he is drawing a contrast in terms of his initial argument in respect to the question that is before the House, and presenting arguments to We know the NDP leader likes to pick fights with the provinces. support that assertion that he made in the initial comments that he We have seen it before, and this is just another clear-cut example. If offered. The hon. member does have some time to present those he is not accusing premiers of being de facto spokespeople for the arguments. I am sure he is going to bring those ideas around to the Prime Minister, he is attempting to shut them out of a debate that question in due course. requires clear provincial co-operation. The Constitution is not a Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the New document any government can wilfully ignore at its convenience, Democrats would not want to discuss the fact that under our and it is not a document one wants to open or edit without a clearly government, families of four are better off right now with more than defined plan. This gimmick before us today by the NDP is just not $3,200 a year. I know that is something I am very proud of. doable. It is as simple as that. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17729

Business of Supply My critic on the other side, the hon. member for Toronto— continue to take action when necessary and hope that, for once, the Danforth, is an experienced professor of law. Would he honestly take Liberals and the NDP put the economy first and support our efforts. this to his students and say to them that this is action, that it is legitimate, that it is constitutional and not at all a gimmick? I highly doubt that this is something he would want to put his name to. He Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. must be as frustrated as I am by this empty motion. He has Speaker, I find it very difficult to follow the minister's quite previously said the New Democrats are open to any kind of meandering and not very relevant speech. It also occurred to me in reasonable reform. I think our plan goes further: it is reasonable and the midst of his speech just how far the Conservatives have fallen it is needed. We know why this is not possible, and why this is as from the commitments they made in the past. risky as the NDP's economic plans for taxes and more taxes.

Part of the reasonable approach we know is needed is that the We can recall when a Liberal senator went AWOL in Mexico. The Senate should be elected, be accountable and have term limits. One Conservative Party's predecessor was there with a mariachi band, of several questions we have put to the Supreme Court is, how do we saying how bad it was to have a Senate with no rules and a Senate do this? I, like many, am anxious to hear about the ruling. that would gouge Canadian taxpayers. It said the same thing about ● (1645) Liberal Senator Lavigne. However, it now appears apparent that what it was actually committing to was replacing corrupt Liberal The Senate reviews laws that affect the day-to-day lives of every senators with corrupt Conservative senators. We can look at Mike Canadian. The Senate makes laws that affect the day-to-day lives of Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau. every Canadian. Lastly, it passes these laws. This is why the Senate should have a democratic mandate, a mandate to represent the people at the will of the people. It is a concrete proposal that we have. Today, in a debate that actually determines whether or not we are Compare that to the proposal in front of us today and it is a case of going to allow this Conservative gravy train to continue, we have a apples and oranges. I encourage the Liberals to support us in moving Conservative who would not even speak to the issue. forward on reforming the Senate and move away from lobbying for the status quo. I understand that they are still searching for policies, so why not borrow some of the ones that work and have ensured The question is very clear. Given all of the scandals coming out of long-term prosperity for our country? the Senate and the fact that Canadians, including Canadians who voted Conservative, want to press for abolition, why are Con- The status quo of the Senate is not good enough. I have long servatives turning their backs on people who voted for them and maintained and our government and party have long maintained that have said that it is simply not good enough to have an unelected and it is not transparent enough and it is not accountable enough. This is unaccountable Senate? People want it abolished. Why do the something that the Auditor General can maybe tend to, thanks to our Conservatives not support that? Why do they not stand with their Leader of the Government in the Senate taking firm and tough action constituents? on something that I know Canadians are proud to see happening.

To my third party colleagues in the corner, I say drop the status ● (1650) quo policy. It is not what Canadians want. Maybe some of my colleagues are hoping to make it their retirement plan, which makes this a tougher choice. However, we are elected by Canadians and, Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister unlike the Senate, we have the responsibility to do what is right. That has been very clear that the Senate must be reformed or it must be is to reform the Senate or, if that is not possible, to see that it is abolished. This has been our position for a long time. abolished. This is a policy that we should stand behind. I can even offer up a policy to the NDP. If kids want to play soccer, support them. This is something that I take very seriously and What the NDP is proposing today is clearly just a gimmick. It I wish the NDP did too. If kids want to play sports or to be active, knows that it will not work. The Supreme Court will provide a ruling logic says that we want them to be healthy, so let them play. NDP on how to reform or abolish the Senate in the not too distant future. logic, however, is to remain silent and hope that no one noticed, but We look forward to that ruling. However, again, what the New people have noticed. It is another tick on the NDP's failed policy Democrats are proposing today is just a gimmick and it just shows column. that they either do not understand the Constitution or they just do not care. Yes, if the policy is not being serious about the Senate or calling for the return of a wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry, or if it is not a $21-billion carbon tax, the NDP members just cannot seem Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. to get it right. They refuse to acknowledge the real and present Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest, but I did not concerns of Canadians. That is their economic future. hear anything about the following: one, who appointed the senators; two, how the Prime Minister chose those senators; three, what the Our government has done very well in keeping the economy on Prime Minister's Office knew from beginning to end on this track and, like I said, one of the best job growths in the G7. We will particular deal, with a buyout of $90,000 and cover-ups and so on. 17730 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply It is great to sit there and say the NDP does not know where it is such as the budget or public safety. There are a number of issues we going and to say the Liberals are in cahoots with the NDP, but let me could be debating here. Unfortunately, the NDP brings forward this refresh this for the minister: first, when did the Prime Minister find motion that it knows very well will not work. out? Second, we are talking about his chief of staff. There could not be anyone closer to any one of us, besides a wife or husband. I am I do not mind debating Senate reform issues. If there is a real plan, wondering if the minister is trying to hoodwink the House, or does the plan is worth discussing. Our plan is to have elections, term he really believe what he says? limits and to put in tougher spending rules. That is the real plan that Does he really stand in front of the mirror and say “mirror, mirror we have. on the wall, I believe what I say”. I would like to know what he can ● (1655) tell us about the $90,000 that was given to Mr. Duffy. Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the hon. [Translation] member a refresher. It was his party, in many years of being in government—the too many years, in fact—who did nothing at all to Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. reform the Senate, make it more accountable or make it more Speaker, what the Minister of State for Democratic Reform said is transparent. They did nothing at all. bunch of nonsense. It is unbelievable. He is talking about a gimmick, but the only gimmick here is the Conservatives' Senate reform plan. We, on the other hand, have an actual plan. We have been clear that the Senate must be reformed, and if it cannot be reformed, it The Conservatives are proposing elections and term limits. must be abolished. We have a plan to have elections to allow Senators would be elected one time. They would be able to serve Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. We nine years and would not be accountable to the public during their have appointed elected senators at every opportunity. mandate. For nine years, they could do whatever they want without I am very proud of the fact that Alberta has been holding those ever being accountable to the public. That is nonsense. elections in my home province. We have term limits in our bill. We have brought in tough new spending rules for the Senate. We have a His government is not doing anything about Senate reform. How plan. The NDP has no plan and the Liberals do not want to do can he justify keeping an institution that undermines democracy anything at all. every single day? I am referring to how the Senate has rejected bills Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister that originated in the House, such as the climate change bill the NDP of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): introduced a few years ago. This bill had the support of all Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals braying across the opposition parties in the House, but it was defeated in the Senate. I way about the Senate when we know they do not want to do am also referring to the bill from my colleague from Acadie— anything about it. They do not want to change it. They want to leave Bathurst requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. His bill it the way it is. was defeated in the Senate.

Does the minister think the motion from the New Democrats How can the government justify keeping an obsolete institution comes out of silliness or from cluelessness? Clearly they have that violates the rights of parliamentarians and prevents them from brought forward a mischievous motion that once again demonstrates properly serving the people they represent? their complete inability to govern or to actually give us an example of what would happen when they govern. If Canadians look at the [English] motion and realize the consequences of it, I think it reminds them one more time that the New Democrats are not fit to govern in this Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, whether she likes it or country. not, the Senate is there; it is in our Constitution, and any legislation We have done a number of things toward reforming the Senate, that we pass here must be passed in the other place. This is in the and certainly that includes 11 or 12 different measures to bring Constitution. I assume the NDP does not know this because the accountability and transparency to the Senate. The Senate leadership gimmick they have proposed today reflects that they do not has called in the Auditor General. We have gone to the Supreme understand. Court with the bill to see what we can do with it. As for our plan, we have a plan for elections, term limits and I am wondering if the member could talk a little about the reforms toughening spending rules. Unfortunately, when we presented we have already brought forward and our intentions in making legislation in this place, the NDP has stalled it at every opportunity. senators transparent and accountable, which we want, as all Canadians do. Now we have taken a further step and referred a number of Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague sees very questions to the Supreme Court of Canada. We await its ruling on clearly, and Canadians see very clearly, that what the NDP members how we can move forward to reform the Senate, and if it cannot be have proposed is nothing more than a gimmick. It is a political stunt. reformed, how we can abolish it. It is unfortunate that they are using up valuable House time just before we are going back to our constituencies for the summer. There Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, are very few hours left in this place to debate very important issues, I have struggled with my position on the Canadian Senate. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17731

Business of Supply I can share with hon. members that my party's policy, based on attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance. our membership vote, was that we should move toward an elected It is our conclusion in this corner of the House that the NDP may Senate. However, I have always preferred our current model. I have very well be completely unaware of how the federal government worried that we would enter into a gridlock if we had an elected works. Senate that felt entitled to shoot down bills that came from the Commons. Therefore, I voted for the NDP motion that called for the It is clear what the NDP is trying to do: push forward its agenda abolition of the Senate. for the federal government to unilaterally abolish the Senate. Liberals cannot agree with that short-sighted and, frankly, uncon- My views around the Senate have changed, basically because of stitutional plan. We are also deeply troubled by the means to which the quality of the senators and the partisanship in the current the NDP is willing to go to further this agenda, including shutting administration of the current Prime Minister. That has made me down the entire Canadian government, and many provincial fearful that the Senate would do again what it did on Bill C-311 in governments, too, I might add. the previous Parliament. This was a bill that was passed by the House on climate and was voted down by unelected senators without a single day of hearings in committee. First, let me address the underlying point on Senate reform. Despite what people hear from Conservatives and New Democrats, I have a question for the hon. minister. Is it not about time that we Liberals are not opposed to Senate reform. We are not pushing for admitted we ought to follow the example of New Zealand, another the status quo. What we are opposed to are unconstitutional Westminster parliamentary democracy, in eliminating the Senate, declarations from high atop the Hill in Ottawa demanding changes to and that we move directly to abolition? the Senate. Let us be perfectly clear. That is what New Democrats are proposing. For all of their talk about consultations with the The bill put forward by the government at the moment does provinces, they have decided what the outcome of those discussions nothing but provide the option for the Prime Minister to pick among will be. That is not consultation. Provinces deserve to have a real possible senators who have been chosen through provincial or voice in this matter. municipal elections. Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear Before we enter any sort of discussion on Senate reform, that we would prefer to reform the Senate, and if that is not possible Canadians, as well as our provincial and federal governments, need to abolish the Senate. That is why we have referred questions to the to know the terms under which the discussion will take place. This Supreme Court, to find a pathway and get some clarity on the issue is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the pathway to either reforming it, or abolishing it, if reform is not responsible way to handle this matter. In fact, Liberals have been possible. asking the government to do this for years and the government has I would refer a question back to the hon. member. Does she really delayed forever. However, the Conservatives only wanted the think that the gimmick put forward today by the NDP is actually a appearance of action. Privately they know that changes to the real plan? Senate will require complex and messy negotiations with the provinces. The New Democrats are following right behind the It obviously is not. In fact, the NDP critic in this area, the member Conservatives. They do not care about hearing from the court for Toronto—Danforth, said that abolition will be at minimum because they know deep down that their policy is unworkable. extraordinarily difficult. It is not going to happen with a little gimmick and a motion like this. My colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and the ● (1700) Liberal democratic reform critic, has done a lot of work on this file, and I have spoken to him a great deal about the matter of Senate [Translation] reform. Let me quote the member at some length regarding the Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. complexities of Senate reform. Speaker, there are a number of problems with the NDP motion. [Translation] First, it does not respect the Supreme Court. Second, it does not respect the provinces. Third, the NDP is helping the government, Many Canadians would like their Senators elected rather than appointed. That’s which would rather talk about the issue of the Senate than the understandable: it would be more democratic. But what would happen if, as proposed $90,000. What is worse, this motion would eliminate the role of the by the [Prime Minister's] government, we changed the way Senate seats are filled federal government in its entirety. This motion is absolutely without amending our Constitution accordingly? If we went along with the Conservative Senate reform proposal, we would have: no dispute settlement ridiculous. mechanism between the elected Senate and the House; continued underrepresentation [English] of Alberta and British Columbia, with only six Senators each (when New Brunswick holds ten); US-style (and now, Italian-style) gridlock between two elected chambers; When my Liberal colleagues and I saw today's motion from the and bitter constitutional disputes regarding the number of senatorial seats to which each province is entitled. NDP, we were taken by surprise. We had assumed that its caucus and, in particular, its Treasury Board critic, would understand the So, first thing first: will the provinces be able to reach an agreement on the effects that the proposal would have on the government. In short, it distribution of Senatorial seats? If they do, we can then figure out which would lead to the total shutdown of the Canadian government by the Constitutional powers we should attribute to the Senate in order to create healthy complementarities with the House—rather than paralyzing duplication. After which end of this fiscal year. We could not imagine that was the intent of we can agree on a process to elect Senators and finally, amend the Constitution the New Democrats. However, I was reminded that one should never accordingly. 17732 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Should the provinces fail to agree about the number of Senators to which each one Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor is entitled, we must avoid the kind of constitutional chaos that an elected Senate General for the Queen’s Assent... would cause. Instead [of risking that kind of chaos], let us keep the Prime Minister accountable for the quality of the individuals he appoints to the Upper House. And let et cetera, et cetera. the Senate continue playing the role conferred by the Fathers of Confederation: the Chamber of scrutiny, or “sober second thought”. The Constitution says the bill has to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. If the NDP gets rid of the Senate, we could not pass any That was a long quote, but I think it contains a reasonable legislation, and that includes money bills, supply bills. In layman's proposal for Senate reform. terms, we need the consent of both Houses of Parliament to enact ● (1705) legislation. There is no way around it except through a constitutional [English] amendment. This motion is certainly not that. As opposition MPs, neither Liberals nor New Democrats may have that big of a problem with the government's not being able to These are not simple questions. The Senate is the body of regional get its ideological agenda through. However, private members' representation for the provinces. Provincial governments would not business would also grind to a halt and supply bills would cease to sit idly by while the New Democratic caucus decides for them what pass. should happen to the Senate, and let us be perfectly honest about this point: consultations on how to abolish the Senate are not This would be a good opportunity to explain to my NDP consultations on Senate reform. colleagues exactly how the Government of Canada spends money, as they do not seem to understand the process very well. I now turn my attention to the quite incredible motion now before the House. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not Any expenditure must be authorized by a law passed by both attribute any malice to the actions of the NDP; rather, I believe the Houses of Parliament. The only exception is during a general motion stems from a lack of understanding as to how the election, and only during a general election, when the government Government of Canada spends money. may use a Governor General's special warrant. This is the only exception. The motion is poorly constructed. It is simply not clear what the member is calling for. Does he simply want the annual appropria- The authorizations for spending, known as an appropriation, come tions of the Senate zeroed out, as his colleague from Winnipeg one of two ways: either there is an existing statute that provides an Centre has proposed for tonight's supply votes, or is the NDP also ongoing authorization to spend funds or the appropriation comes calling for the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that are from the annual supply bills that we pass. required if we are to remove senators' salaries? My colleagues may be more familiar with the supply bills I will give my colleague the benefit of the doubt, as I hope it was processes, as those bills are supported by the estimates that we not the intent of New Democrats to leave senators with no work, but review periodically in this House and in committee. In fact, we are a full salary. dealing with two supply bills this evening. ● (1710) However, it is clear that their intent is to shut the Senate down without making the necessary amendments to the Canadian It is important to consider what spending has to be authorized each Constitution. It is as if they think they have found a way around and every year by Parliament, as I do not think the NDP has given our founding laws and can perform an end run around the Supreme any thought to this aspect. Court and the provinces. Voted spending, meaning the appropriations we have to approve The motion does not abolish the Senate, it renders it inoperative. It every year, fund the operations of the government. Funding for civil does not matter how much they dislike the Senate; it is a needed part service salaries, power and heating bills and printer paper all need to of our government under the Constitution. be authorized every year. None of this could be authorized with a de- funded Senate. We should consider the effects that this proposal would have on our government. The Senate would still exist. In fact, there is a good This brings me back to April 1, 2014, the date the NDP want the chance senators would still get paid. However, some changes would Government of Canada to shut down completely. That is the be noticed on July 1, the day on which the money would be cut off. beginning of the next fiscal year. All the funding we have approved The hallway and offices down the hall would go dark. Senate this year expires on March 31. It does not matter if government security guards and staff in the other place would be laid off. This departments scrimp and save in anticipation of the shutdown; the would be most unfortunate for our House colleagues who have appropriations simply expire. offices in the east block. This would be somewhat similar to the situation when Newt We would not notice any serious changes until the fall, when Gingrich forced the U.S. government to shut down in 1995 and Parliament would return from the summer recess. It is then that the 1996. However, it turns out the U.S. is prepared for such an legislative backup would begin. eventuality. The Antideficiency Act allows for some government employees to remain paid and employed so that certain entitlement Section 55 of the Constitution Act—meaning it cannot be changed programs, such as social security and public safety operations, by this Parliament alone—states: continue during a government shutdown. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17733

Business of Supply Canada has no such contingency. This is not a worst-case scenario; this would be the outcome of the NDP motion. Under the NDP plan, April 1, 2014, would be a dark day in Canadian history. The Canadian Armed Forces would shut down. I was shocked yesterday to read in an interview with the New The RCMP would cease to be paid. The Correctional Service of Democratic treasury board critic that he expected the Senate staff Canada would shutter. Canadians would be worried about these should simply volunteer their time to pass bills. It is as if none of the events, but if they turned to the CBC for information on what was hard-working staff of the Senate has a family to feed. going on, they would be sorely disappointed, because the CBC relies heavily on annual appropriations. Canadians could call the It was always the contention of the NDP that it was the party of government to register their concerns, but government phone lines labour. How does it justify throwing 400 people out of work and would also go unanswered. The phones would ring, but no one then telling them that instead of finding new work, they need to would be there to answer them. show up and volunteer their time? Not only that, this army of 400 volunteers would have to spend their own money to print such things Automatic processes would continue for a little while. According as the order paper and Hansard just to keep the place running. to Hydro Ottawa, we would have about 40 days to pay the bill before ● (1715) the power would be cut off. Without the ability to pay rent, many departments would be evicted from their office buildings across the We are left with three possible explanations for today's NDP country. motion, none of which are particularly comforting. Almost certainly, other countries would want to offer assistance to The first possibility is that this is nothing but a cynical political the suddenly governmentless Canadians; however, all of our ploy. embassies abroad would be closed. Here in Ottawa, the Department of Foreign Affairs would be dark. The second, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, is that maybe the NDP just does not understand how our government Canadians are a resilient group of people. We would adapt. I am works. sure many Canadians would enjoy the now unfettered access to cross-border shopping. Let us remember that CBSA would not be The third explanation is the most concerning. It is that maybe we functional anymore. are witnessing the NDP's version of federalism. By reducing the Senate's appropriations to zero, the NDP would be dropping an atom Luckily, many services Canadians rely on, such as health and bomb into the middle of federal-provincial relations. The provinces education, are delivered by our provincial governments. However, would be forced either to consent to the NDP's abolition plan or be almost every province depends on the CRA to collect their income faced with no tax money and no transfers on April 1. taxes. Provinces that have HST rely on the CRA to collect that as well. Provincial governments also rely on billions in transfer I think I have said enough to demonstrate that this motion is payments from the federal government for health care, education, entirely idiotic. Not only does it fail to respect the Supreme Court housing and other social services. These payments would stop and the provinces, not only does it let the government off the hook in because there would be no staff to administer them. Provincial terms of the debate about the role of the PMO in the $90,000, but it governments would be left scrambling to find enough funding to is inane. It is idiotic. It is stupid. It is farcical. It would result in the deliver the services Canadians rely on from them. They would have complete shutdown of the federal government and many of the no choice but to run massive deficits. provincial governments. Did the New Democrats consult with the premiers about this? It obviously shows the NDP is not fit to govern. The best advice I How would the NDP premiers of Nova Scotia and Manitoba feel can give to sensible NDP members of Parliament is to vote against about their federal party's plan? Let us remember that Canadians their own ridiculous motion. would need that provincial health care, as the Canadian Food Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Inspection Agency would also be completely de-funded. There NDP): Mr. speaker, I think it obvious that when the Liberals were would be no more food inspections. in power, they could not clean that House. The Conservatives cannot clean that House now either. Canadians should also be rightly concerned about what would happen to their CPP, their EI and their OAS and GIS under this plan. Let me read something that one of my constituents wrote. This is The funding for those transfer payments are statutory in nature and from Marg McMillan from White River: do not need annual renewal, but there would be no one to administer Constituents in our neck of the woods are extremely disappointed with the those programs. There would be no civil service left. We simply do government that the 3 known individuals as there may be more who have scammed not know how long those programs would last; maybe it would be the people and are not being fired. Even though the funds upon audit are repaid that until their hydro was cut off. We do know that if anyone had a does not excuse the theft— problem with these services, they would be out of luck. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has a point of order. These are the problems that Canadians would immediately face. There would be nothing for the granting councils or the Canada Ms. Joyce Bateman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, did we not Council for the Arts. Government research in investment would just all learn in question period that we, under the big green book, cease to exist. are not able to bring specific constituency examples into this House? 17734 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. It is somewhat alarming that the motion put forward by the NDP member for Winnipeg South Centre for her intervention. I will take a today is not constitutional. We heard earlier from the hon. minister look at that. Earlier today I think the reference was made by the hon. that even a five-year-old child has to be told about process and the government House leader in respect to questions during oral importance of process. questions. Therefore, my first question for the hon. member is, could he Having said that, I do recall that the practice of citing specific comment on the process, because I personally found the speech references and/or quotations from individual constituents or somewhat alarming? Canadians is not something that is encouraged in the House. As for the second question, when there was a coalition being I will look into that and get back to the House as may be considered in 2008, as the member would know very clearly, the necessary. New Democrats were already naming whom they would appoint to Hon. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the Senate. Could he enlighten us on that issue? if we are not here to represent our constituents and bring their views, Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I do not take this as an and say what they are telling us, then who the heck are we here for? insult, but I am not a lawyer; I am an economist. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I think that is probably just adding to the same point. The process was described in that long quote I had from my colleague as “one sensible process”. This motion is just ridiculous, As I said, we will get back to the House as may be necessary on as I said earlier, but we cannot really do anything on the process until the question. we hear from the Supreme Court. We had recommended a year ago to refer to the Supreme Court and finally the government has. Mrs. Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, she goes on to say: Therefore, I do not think there is much point in having big They cannot explain this theft away with “I did not understand”...it was a fully discussions on Senate reform until we hear from the Supreme Court, knowledgeable theft. Personally I will check out exactly what these overpaid because that will tell us the legitimate constitutional paths. politicians do in the Senate.. it is some sort of retirement position I think. The entire government in my mind look like fools not demanding firing. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech by the member for Markham—Unionville. On that note, the issue before us is to not fund the Senate. As for He posed a question that I would like to hear the answer to. dealing with the Constitution after that, we are prepared to deal with that after the fact. This is the biggest piece that we have here. He indicated that this motion is grounded in one of three On this specific note, when someone is caught red-handed, as Mr. possibilities: it is a cynical political stunt, it reflects a misunder- Duffy and some other senators have been, is it the opinion of the standing on the part of the NDP as to how government works or it Liberals that such people should not be above the law? Do they think reflects the New Democrats' idea of federalism. they should also be charged by the police? The member left it as an open question. I would invite him to Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, of course we think that answer it. people should pay the money back, and then it is up to the authorities Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I would say it is all of the to decide whether or not to lay criminal charges. above, particularly one and two; I am not so sure about three. It is However, I wonder if the hon. member was listening to my certainly a political stunt because the New Democrats realize the speech. I tried to explain in very simple language that this is a Senate is unpopular these days so they want that message out. As I ridiculous motion, the effect of which would be to close down the indicated in my speech, it certainly reflects a total misunderstanding whole federal government. of how the government works. I do not know how any of the NDP members can continue to [Translation] support their own motion, which would have disastrous effects on Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this country and which would never have been put by anybody who it is unacceptable for an experienced member to make such had the slightest understanding of how the government works. comments. They are patronizing, almost colonial comments. It is unacceptable to say that it is impossible to carry out modern ● (1720) parliamentary reforms. The people are seeing all the scandals that The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. I just have unfolded in the past two weeks, or in the past few years in the want to advise hon. members that there is a great deal of interest in case of the Liberals. It is possible to carry out reforms. questions and comments today. I would ask hon. members to keep their interventions to no more than a minute. That also applies to As for effectiveness, the Senate rates a zero. If its activities were those who are responding. included in Canada's GDP, we would be one of the worst countries in the world. The Senate is not effective in the least, it has a high The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. absenteeism rate and we do not get our money's worth. The member Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC): Mr. just said that everything would shut down if we stopped funding the Speaker, I really appreciate the comments from the hon. member for Senate. If they truly want to serve their country, senators should Markham—Unionville. Specifically, I have two questions for this volunteer their time. In any event, they were elected by the Liberals gentleman, who is a lawyer and has a lot of background. and the Conservatives. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17735

Business of Supply Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, what is completely Josée gets up very early in the morning and takes her child to unacceptable is the NDP's ridiculous motion. The NDP should daycare. She has been working in a grocery store for 15 years. She know that there are certain rules. We have a Constitution and we has no pension and is not unionized. must abide by it. We have no choice. We will have to wait for the Supreme Court decision to find out the details. However, most Roger, my neighbour in Saint-Jérôme, rises at 5:30 in the experts believe that the consent of all the provinces and the federal morning and gets in his car. He used to work at Air Canada, but was government is needed to abolish the Senate. It cannot be done with later transferred to Aveos. Aveos closed. Now he is forced to just an NDP motion. It would take the approval of at least the commute from Saint-Jérôme to work in the east end. He is on the majority of the provinces, if not all of them. road for an hour and a half every morning. ● (1725) Denise is 75 years old. She has health problems. She goes to the [English] hospital and waits 15 hours in the emergency room. She has trouble Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. getting the health care she needs. She has no support at home. Speaker, this is not a serious proposal from the opposition. This is great for grandstanding in the House of Commons in the Ottawa While this goes on, what is Parliament doing? What is being done bubble, but this is not a serious motion. by the people sitting in front of me and next to me—the people who were elected to run this country? We are busy discussing people who The NDP wants to abolish the Senate, but it knows that it does not were not elected and use a lot of taxpayers' money illegally. When have the support to do that in this country. Whether we believe it Josée, Roger and Denise come home in the evening, they turn on the requires the 7/50 amending formula or it requires the unanimity of 11 radio and hear about Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau and Harb, and they are legislatures in this country, the NDP realizes it does not have the fed up with politics. support for that. Not to mention that a majority of its Quebec caucus has not There is a moral and social crisis in Canada regarding the political responded as to whether or not the province of Quebec would elite. It starts with the municipalities. People are disgusted by what is demand its Meech Lake five demands: the recognition of Quebec's happening at the municipal level. They are disgusted by what is nationhood, appointments to the Supreme Court, vetoes for all happening at the provincial level. At the federal level, it is more than provinces, opt-out provisions and control of immigration by people can stomach. It is incredible that there can be such an abuse provincial governments. They have not responded as to whether of funds, especially since these people are not legitimately the province of Quebec would demand that ahead of any abolition of appointed. Who are these people in the Senate? the Senate. Before the scandals broke, I was not really interested in who sits Instead, what the NDP is trying to do is something through the in the Senate. However, I recently looked up the senators and why back door that it cannot accomplish through the front door. It they are there. It is despicable. reminds me of the tactics, frankly, of what the Republicans are doing in the United States. The affordable care act, otherwise known as We cannot accept that a political instrument such as the Senate is Obamacare, passed in the legislature. Instead of ensuring the used to reward fundraisers. It is unbelievable. The list is long. successful implementation of the act, the GOP has decided to starve Liberal and Conservative fundraisers have equal representation. it of its funds so as to not allow it to operate. They are obviously friends. A buddy is a buddy. I look at the list of people who have been appointed to the Senate by the Conservative Clearly, this motion is nothing more than political grandstanding. Party and I just cannot believe it. It is not a serious proposal from a government that is supposed to be in-waiting. I will start with the Liberals' friends. David Smith is a chair of the Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my national fundraising campaign. James Cowan was vice-chair of the colleague said. However, I also think that the government's current Nova Scotia fundraising campaign. I have a couple of examples for plan is not serious. It is also trying to do things through the back the Conservatives. Irving Gerstein was a party fundraiser. Judith door by avoiding the Constitution. Seidman was co-chair of the leadership campaign. Other buddies include Donald Neil Plett, president of the Conservative Party, and If we have an elected Senate, which is what the government David Braley, a major donor. The list goes on. It is a cushy job for wants, but we have no change in the distribution of seats, it would be party cronies. We cannot accept that. It is an incredible situation. grossly unfair to British Columbia and Alberta, which only have 6 seats each versus New Brunswick, which has 10, P.E.I., which has 4, Can someone in this House tell me why Jacques Demers is a and so on. If we are going to have an elected Senate which is more senator? I like the man. I liked him as a hockey coach. However, he powerful, we have to first deal with the distribution of the seats. The is now behind the bench of a team that is asleep at the switch. What current government appears not to be willing to do that. is Josée Verner doing there? People did not vote for her. She is a However, again, we will have to see what the Supreme Court says. failed candidate. Right after the election they sent her to the Senate. That is just incredible. It is outrageous. People are fed up. They are [Translation] disgusted with politics. They do not want to vote any more, and that Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP): Mr. has been brought about by the people who are governing this country Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Halifax. in a totalitarian and, I dare say, unethical manner. It has come to this. 17736 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply My ancestors fought in Lower Canada for the 92 resolutions, for ● (1735) responsible government, for elected individuals who would be accountable to a parliament for making laws and administering them [English] and who would be accountable to the electorate. My ancestors were The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before we go to hanged for that. questions and comments, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton ● (1730) Hills is rising on a point of order. Here we have a situation where people can overturn the decisions Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the of the public's elected representatives without being accountable to debate taking place on this motion and it concerns me a great deal anyone. That is unacceptable. that we are bringing disrespect on Parliament and the Senate. I would ask, through you Mr. Speaker, that members of this House show The Liberals are scaring people. They are saying that our motion respect for this institution as it is structured in the Constitution of this will paralyze Parliament and that we will not be able to pass any country, the basic law of the land. more laws. They have spent the past 30 years scaring Quebec and the rest of Canada. It is unacceptable that they are standing and trying to For reference, pages 614 and 615 of the House of Commons ridicule us when, basically, they are the ridiculous ones in the eyes of Procedure and Practice , second edition, say: “Disrespectful history. reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House and the They forced the Constitution down our throats even though Senate individually are not permitted. Members of the House and the Quebec did not sign it. Now, they are saying that this is Senate are also protected by this rule”. unconstitutional and so on. Where was their respect for the democratic process when the Constitution was signed in 1982? It goes on to say, on page 615, that: “it is out of order to question a They had no respect. I am getting carried away, but I believe that Senator’s integrity, honesty or character”. things need to change. I think it is clear what the rules of this chamber are, and I ask, Moving on to the subject of volunteering, I have worked with through you Mr. Speaker, that all members respect the rules of this exceptional men and women in the community over the past 15 place, the rule of law, and that we all follow that as this debate years. Every day, hundreds of people are working for causes they unfolds over the rest of this evening. believe in, whether it is supporting abused women, women's groups or food banks. Every day, hundreds of people give of their time to The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. food banks to help people living in poverty and isolation. member for Wellington—Halton Hills for his intervention in this matter. Members will be reminded that when they are compelled to I am told that the politics could never attract volunteers to improve attribute characterizations or descriptions of other hon. members, be the country's situation. I do not believe it. I have seen people work they members here in the House or otherwise, that is an area that hard, raise money, go into hospitals and go into schools to help should be used with extreme care and caution, as the member for children. Why would such volunteerism not be appropriate in Wellington—Halton Hills has pointed out. It is a long-standing politics? practice of the House that while members can bring strong arguments in terms of the specific question they have to present, I have seen people get involved in protecting wetlands and they should avoid these kinds of characterizations because they can fighting against oil development projects that threatened the quickly move into the area of unparliamentary debate. Of course, as environment. I have seen volunteers get involved in sports members know, that would be ruled out of order. I thank hon. organizations across the country. It is not ridiculous to propose that members for their attention and thank the member for Wellington— senators not be paid. It is an idea that I really like. Halton Hills for his comments on the matter. When we talk about the amending formula, we must remember that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chrétien patriated the Constitution without Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans. Quebec's consent, obviously, and imposed an unworkable amending ● (1740) formula on us. They locked the Constitution up tight, and now that we are trying to make reforms, we are being told that changes require [Translation] the support of 50% of the population and seven of the provinces, yet Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I Quebec did not support this amending formula. In fact, people do not have a question for the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord. I listened agree with the Constitution. carefully to his speech. However, I am not sure whether he himself Was the Constitution ratified at the national level? Was a vote held paid attention to what he was saying. He was getting really agitated, on it? People are discouraged and fed up with the situation. In that practically tearing his hair out. At some point he could not even regard, today's debate is moving things forward. I am talking understand why I was applauding him. primarily to the people who are watching at home. I am not trying to convince the people in power, because they are cynics. They use I was applauding to show my support for the May 2, 2011 election their power for their own purposes. result in the Louis-Saint-Laurent riding. I respect this result. I would like him to respect all the other results, including those that If Canadians want responsible MPs who will improve the political legitimately allowed the government currently in power to sit to the situation in Canada, they should vote for the NDP. right of the Speaker. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17737

Business of Supply In his speech he ranted about all kinds of issues under provincial ● (1745) jurisdiction, over which we have no authority whatsoever. The issue of the day is his proposal to abolish the Senate. I would like him to I do think it is beautiful in its simplicity. We need to do something tell us what legal mechanism he intends to use to do that. about the Senate. Look at the situation we are in right now when it comes to the Senate. Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle: Mr. Speaker, I do feel strongly about the Senate and the use of public funds by unelected individuals who What are the facts? What do we know? We are constantly being were appointed so they could take advantage of these privileges. We told that the Senate offers us this house of sober second thought. I are not proposing to abolish the Senate. think that is debatable. I will return to the sober second thought part. Here is what the motion says: “That all funding should cease to be The member for Wellington—Halton Hills pointed out that we provided to the Senate...”. need to speak respectfully about Parliament. That includes the We are not talking about abolishing the Senate. That is not what Senate, the other place. I would argue that it is the senators who are the motion is about. We want to ensure that senators do not receive bringing disrespect to Parliament, not us who are here in this different treatment than most Canadians. chamber. They are the ones who are bringing disrespect to Parliament. [English] This so-called house of sober second thought, these sober second Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thinkers, are also filing false expense claims. We know that to be have a question for the member on constitutionality in terms of what true. They are also misleading the public and Parliament about where the New Democratic Party has before us today. If we look at the they live. We know that they are abusing public funds. We know that substance of the motion and the debate, it would appear that the New they find the forms that ask them where they live to be confusing and Democrats do not understand the way in which our process works in difficult to understand. We also know that they are driving around Canada and that there are some constitutionally challenged ideas that with expired licence plates. are being talked about by the NDP. Do New Democrats have any form of legal opinions that would support their position that we can I think that Canadians have paid enough money for this take every nickel or dime away from the Senate and that it would undemocratic institution and it is time that we stop spending allow us to be in compliance with our Constitution? millions of taxpayer dollars on this institution. The Senate is costing taxpayers $92.5 million a year. Frankly, that is $92.5 million too Does the member have a list of provinces that support what the much. New Democrats are proposing, given that there is a 7/50 rule across Canada in terms of constitutional change? The member for Markham—Unionville said that this motion is [Translation] idiotic. Tell that to the British House of Lords because they do not get paid as a right. They do not get paid for being lords. They do not Mr. Pierre Dionne Labelle: Mr. Speaker, I know that the have a salary in the House of Lords. Those folks get paid sort of a Conservative government has increased the Senate's budget and per diem for showing up. I would ask this question. Is that an idiotic decreased the budget of the House of Commons. Since the Senate's way of doing things? budget has been increased, it can logically also be decreased. I do not see how that is connected to the Constitution in any way. The Liberals and Conservatives insist that we cannot do anything about the Senate. They say it is too big a constitutional issue, and The Liberal Party's constitutional experts are the same ones who once we open up the Pandora's box of constitutional issues no one patriated the Constitution and shoved it down Quebeckers' throats. will ever agree. We will go into this dark abyss of constitutional They did so without Quebec's approval. pandemonium, never to escape. Give me a break.

I do not think this is a constitutional matter. This is about logic, The NDP does not believe this. That is why we are talking to pure and simple. Canadians first. That is the first step, talking to Canadians. I have been going door-to-door quite a bit at home, and at every single door People might be prepared to give their time to reflect on our people are asking if I can tell them what is going on with the Senate. country's future without being paid and without an unlimited budget. This is what folks are talking about. We want to tap into that and see [English] what people are saying. The NDP has launched our petition to roll up the red carpet, which people can sign, saying that this institution is Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to outdated and it is time to get rid of it. speak to this. I have been listening to the debate in the House and I heard the member for Markham—Unionville say in his speech that After talking to Canadians, we need to start talking with the the motion was poorly worded. I want to challenge that because I provinces. It is not that difficult. We can start with these baby steps. think it is not a poorly worded motion; the motion is quite beautiful. Let us talk to the provinces. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister It is beautifully worded and it is elegant in its simplicity. It says: who refuses to meet with the provinces. He has not been to the That all funding should cease to be provided to the Senate beginning on July 1, Council of the Federation. I cannot remember when he was there 2013. last, or if he was even there. 17738 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply The Liberals and Conservatives are insisting that they cannot do last time a senator ever stood up for Nova Scotia. I realized that they anything, that it is sad and unfortunate but their hands are bound. did not, they just did what their parties told them to do. This is it. It is lovely. It is simple. It is elegant. Here is a solution. Let us pass this motion. There is nothing stopping us from doing this. Here is what they are told to do. The Climate Change Accountability Act passed in the House by a majority of I have heard some comments about the constitutionality of this democratically-elected members of Parliament. We acted on the motion. It is not unconstitutional to adopt a motion saying that the will of the people and the will of the people was to pass climate Senate should be defunded. The constitutionality of any subsequent change accountability legislation. When it got to the other place, it legislation is a separate issue. This in itself is no problem. The sole was voted down. This is what Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative purpose of this motion is the signal that it sends that the Senate is an Senate house leader, stated: illegitimate drain on the public purse. We were as surprised as anyone else that the Liberals forced a vote on second Let us do it. Let us move to the House of Lords model. Those reading of this bill. But once the Liberals presented us with an opportunity to defeat guys are doing just fine. I do not think what they are doing is idiotic. the bill, we of course were going to take it and defeat the bill because the government There is not a lot of response to that. The cat has their tongues, the does not support this bill. The fact of the matter is this was not part of a strategy, this was something that landed in our laps. It was an opportunity to defeat the bill and we Liberals and Conservatives, because I do not think they treat the took the opportunity. Senate as a house of sober second thought. They treat it as a fundraising arm for their parties. They want to keep appointing That evening I was upstairs in this very place with Jack Layton, senators so they can go out and raise money for their parties on the our then NDP leader. I had never seen him so angry. I had never taxpayer's dime. heard him yell. He was beside himself with rage about how a bill in Let us look at who is in the Senate. There are David Smith and the House of Commons could be passed by democratically-elected James Cowan, and they are the co-chairs of the Liberal campaign. MPs and when it got to the Senate, the senators said it was gone. It They are campaign directors. I get along with James Cowan. I have was unbelievable. It is $92.5 million too much. worked with him. He is a nice guy. We are both from Nova Scotia (1750) and we have done some work together. We get along because we ● have a lot in common and we both like politics. I also get along with Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister the Halifax Federal Liberal Riding Association president, Layton of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have spent a number of Dorey. He and I have a lot in common. We like to talk politics and years in the House and, to be quite frank, I have never seen a motion we can shoot the breeze. I get along with these folks, but there is a from the opposition that is so absolutely ludicrous. It shows that the big difference between Layton Dorey and James Cowan, because New Democrats have no respect for our Constitution or they do not Layton Dorey is not being paid by taxpayers to do the work that he is understand. doing for the Liberal Party.

Let us look at the Conservatives. The chief fundraiser and chair of We know we have to make changes to the Senate. We are going the Conservative Fund Canada is a senator. They should go for it, fill through a process and have referred it to the Supreme Court. We their boots, do all the fundraising they want to do, but they should heard some great words from some of the Liberals in terms of what not be able to do it on the taxpayer's dime. We should not be paying would actually happen if this motion passed. She needs to explain to for a fundraising arm of these political parties. Let us remember that Canadians how she could be so irresponsible as to speak to this they are being paid, in total, $92.5 million. Senators are campaigning motion. for the Conservatives and Liberals, while being paid by taxpayers and I do not think that is what Canadians are paying them for. If they ● (1755) are doing useful work for those parties, then those parties should be paying them out of their own coffers as fundraisers. Ms. Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I go back to the beginning of my speech, where I pointed out that this was the situation in the House The raison d'être of the Senate, when it was formed at of Lords. It is not unheard of. It is not silly. It is not some crazy Confederation, was one of sober second thought, with representa- concept. This is the way it is in England. They get their per diem if tives from the provinces bringing regional interests to Parliament in they show up and do the work, but it is not a salary as a right. doing that kind of political analysis on policy debates. Senators were supposed to be an integral part of our democracy, but we have seen If we de-fund the Senate, this is the first step. What the heck? anything but in the past 146 years. Fundraisers, failed candidates and There would be a lot of Canadians out there who would be pretty senior party staffers have all been appointed time and time again to interested in volunteering in Parliament. They actually care about the upper chamber and the reality is that senators appointed by what is going on in Parliament. They want to see good legislation partisan prime ministers have a poor record of defending our pass. If we had volunteers, they would not go across the country regional interests. fundraising for the folks in here.

When I first arrived here, I spoke with our then democratic reform Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. critic from Hamilton Centre and told him that I was from Nova Speaker, I was interested when the member said she was here with Scotia, that there were Nova Scotian senators and I was conflicted Jack Layton and she went on to say something. I presume that she about our position on abolishing the Senate. He asked when was the would have said something like he kicked something. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17739

Business of Supply I remember the late Mr. Layton when he was on the city council in Supreme Court regarding our reference, we are confident that our Toronto. We talk about people at the trough, we talk about people reforms have moved the ball forward. who are getting $90,000 and all that kind of stuff. If I remember correctly, was it not Jack Layton who was living in co-op housing We have proposed term limits because we believe that the when he and his spouse were city councillors? Is that not being at the legitimacy of the Senate suffers when its membership can be trough? appointed for up to 45 years. We have also proposed a selection mechanism for Senate nominees, so that willing provinces and Ms. Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, if you find this unparliamentary, territories can give Canadians a say on who serves as their that is fine, but that is a gross question. representative in the upper chamber. Taken together, these modest The member knows full well that Jack Layton was living in co- reforms represent a positive development in building a modern, operative housing. It is co-operative housing, not low-income representative democracy that has faith in its institutions. housing. He was paying according to his income. That is a Liberal Our government has long believed that the Senate status quo is not smear campaign against Jack Layton. It is one of the grossest things I acceptable and must change in order to reach its full potential, as an have heard in the House. accountable and democratic institution. With that understood, I have Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to two goals for my remarks today, and I will address each in turn. thank my colleague from Halifax for speaking about our late leader, Jack Layton. Quite frankly, with regards to the member for First, I will defend our government's plan for Senate reform for Scarborough—Agincourt, it was absolutely contemptible that he what it is: a practical effort to make the Senate democratically would actually stand and say what he did. legitimate. Second, I will address the opposition motion and refute it. Not because the members are from a different party, but because Besides all of that, it is clear to me, although it is not as clear to their short motion represents everything wrong with their Senate my colleague down there. Then again, they are Liberals and I would reform position. We have a duty to point out those problems for the not expect it to be clear. That is why they are like flags on a flag record. I believe that our reforms are sound, pragmatic and pole, whichever way the wind blows today, they will blow that way achievable and that they would lead to a fundamentally more too. accountable and effective upper chamber. The bottom line is that there are many folks who would be more I am honoured to share my thoughts with members today, so let us than pleased to come here and serve their country. In fact, I could begin. name five people in Welland for the member for Halifax. I have heard Senators say that is why they are there. They are there to serve I have said our government has long been committed to Senate our country. Let them come and serve, and we will give them per reform. The Senate must change and we intend to make it happen. diem. However, they do not need to get paid. If the parliamentary By referring questions to the Supreme Court, we have signalled that secretary says that the only reason they come is because they get a it is time for action that concludes the commitment we made to salary, perhaps that is not who we want to have in there in the first Canadians during the last federal election. We look forward to the place. opinion of the Supreme Court on these questions, as they will give Canadians certainty about what is possible and how reform must be What does my hon. colleague think about that? done. Ms. Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from The rules should be clear for all to see. Our government believes Welland for that perspective and for talking about his constituents, that Senate reform is needed now and we are committed to pushing a who would be proud to serve. practical, reasonable approach to reform that we believe would help We are forced to do this because of the inaction of the other two restore effectiveness and legitimacy in the upper chamber. If we have parties over all this time. They keep insisting we cannot do anything. learned anything from the history of the 1980s or 1990s, we know The Conservatives are saying that we need to reform the Senate. Canadians do not want another long constitutional battle that flares They need to show it to us. What are they doing? We have had no tempers and detracts from the government's top priority, which is the action on this. The Prime Minister campaigned on this, yet there is economy. no action from the Conservatives. Through the reforms that our government has tabled since we If the Conservatives are actually serious about reform, show it to have been in government, we have demonstrated that we are willing us. However, they have not, so here we are. We are offering a simple to take concrete action to fulfill our commitments to Canadians. As scalpel-like opportunity to drain the senators of funding so we can all we said, our reforms aim to accomplish two things. move on, end of story. First, we are in favour of a democratic Senate. We support Mr. Corneliu Chisu (Pickering—Scarborough East, CPC): Mr. establishing a framework for provinces and territories to establish Speaker, I rise today to oppose the NDP's motion to de-fund the democratic consultation processes to give Canadians a say in who Senate. represents them in the Senate. Our government and our party have always been clear about our Second, we support term limits for senators. We have consistently commitment to bring reform to the Senate chamber. We pledged to supported legislation to introduce term limits for new and recently do this in 2011 and we have taken real action toward achieving this appointed senators, which would ensure the Senate would be goal. While this process is long and we wait to hear from the refreshed with new ideas on a regular basis. 17740 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply With respect to the first change, we believe prime ministers should an actual plan. We are the only ones who have put forward concrete have to consider the names of anyone selected using democratic steps to move toward a defined goal. The other parties just talk about processes. This is a good idea worthy of support. Why? The process ideas, but we have a plan. would be entirely optional and inherently co-operative. It would allow the provinces to opt in and tailor their rules to fit their provinces' circumstances and the desires of their people. Alberta has The other parties just want to say the easy things. They say to just been doing this since the 1980s, and our reforms would encourage appoint better people. That is easy to say. They say to just make a other provinces to develop their own set of selection processes to better appointment process, but they do not suggest a better process. give their citizens a greater voice in selecting their representatives. That is easy to say. They say to just get rid of it. That is easy to say and is very hard to do. The opposition is just taking the easy way out ● (1800) and saying what it thinks people want to hear. Second, we have consistently said that we believe that the system is constitutional. Under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Parliament has the legislative authority to amend the Constitution in This is what I think. I think Canadians want a government with a relation to the Senate. By allowing the provinces to choose a plan. I think Canadians want a government willing to deal with the democratic process for senate nominations, we are being open and hard questions and willing to work across the country to find a way co-operative. Our plan gives different communities the freedom to to solve the problems of the Senate. It is very clear that the find different solutions to their representation challenges. opposition parties will not do that and cannot do that. They just want to take the easy way out. Our approach is much better. The other major initiative of our position is the imposition of Senate term limits. When we first approached this problem, we saw that the status quo was clearly problematic. Terms in the upper Our government is the only party to put forward a plan, and we chamber could span several decades, and there were few mechan- have asked the Supreme Court to set out some of the rules to make isms for removing senators from office once they had been sure that we can deliver on our promises to Canadians. appointed. Polls have consistently shown that over 70% of Canadians support Let us look at what the NDP is offering Canadians. I think they limiting senators' terms, but this goes beyond the obvious will be disappointed. accountability reasons for limiting term length. Allowing a greater turnover of senators actually makes for a more representative Senate, ● (1805) one that reflects national minorities and current regional opinions. When senators have to be replaced every nine years, there will not be a representative body that looks like Canada did 50 years ago. This The NDP proposes to de-fund the Senate rather than go through reform would increase accountability and make for a more relevant any hard work. I can only guess that it hopes that this path produces and representative Senate. These are changes we can support. a de facto abolition of the upper chamber, since it would lack the We have always believed that like the change in Senate terms from funds to do anything. Senators and the Senate would still exist, of life to age 65, limiting the terms of senators is an amendment course, but they would be starved of money. The Senate would lack Parliament can make itself. the ability to pay senators, fund their travel, or deal with expenses, which we have seen can be a bit of a mess. We have indicated previously that the property requirements should be examined due to the way property is dealt with in our northern areas and as a look toward modernizing the Senate. The NDP motion would do more than that. The member for Pontiac, who introduced the motion, acknowledged that it would do Ultimately, we believe that the Senate must be reformed or else more in an interview he did with iPolitics, just yesterday. must be abolished. The Prime Minister has said this many times. The minister has said this many times, and I will repeat it many times. The Senate needs to reform, or it should be abolished. It is very It would stop the funding for translators. It would stop the funding simple. That is why we have referred questions to the Supreme Court for research and committee support staff. It would stop the funding of Canada on abolition. It is because we need certainty, if we can get for administrative staff and perhaps even the security staff. Many it, on how to go about abolishing the Senate if it cannot be reformed. people would be out of work, over 400 or so, and on Canada Day, no However, we are optimistic on this side of the House that the Senate less. can and should be reformed. We think Canadians agree with us that the Senate should be reformed and that politicians can come together to agree on that too. Let us be clear. The member for Pontiac actually said that the Senate staff of public servants could “do some volunteer work”. I am If it is not possible, if the Senate cannot be reformed, because not sure that those people would see it the same way. Perhaps the senators will not co-operate or because politicians cannot work Senate support staff could ask Ontario public servants about the days together to solve a national problem, then it needs to go. It would under the member for Toronto Centre and their experiences when need to go, because the status quo is unacceptable. That is something they were de-funded, when the member, now in the Liberal caucus, we all agree on, but our party, our government, is the only one with was running Ontario as an NDP premier. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17741

Business of Supply The NDP motion is not a serious proposal. It is not a serious plan. Our position is that the Senate should be reformed. If it cannot be It is simply a communications exercise. The New Democrats want reformed, then we should consider abolition. However, we should stories about how they want to cut off the Senate but the other parties have enough respect for our institutions and our democracy to work just stand in their way. However, their motion is not a serious plan. toward the improvement of an institution in need of repair before turning to the proverbial wrecking ball. When something is broken, the first thing one does is see if it can be fixed and maybe made better and stronger. The NDP wants to We in this House owe it to Canadians to do better than what the skip straight to the trash bin. That is where the NDP motion should NDP is asking for. I ask my colleagues to support our government's have gone, because the NDP motion is not a serious plan, and plan to move forward and become part of the solution. because the members know it cannot work, and because it was done simply as a communications exercise, I would call it a gimmick. The In 2006, the Prime Minister sat before the Senate special NDP is pulling a gimmick today. committee on Senate reform to speak in favour of adopting Bill S-4, one of our government's first attempts at Senate reform. At the end of Do not get me wrong. I know that the member for Winnipeg his presentation, he shared a short quote from a book he had recently Centre will want to object. The New Democrats are following the reviewed. It said: rules, yes. They say that they want to debate funding of the Senate, which they are doing right now. Yes, having a debate about how Probably on no other public question in Canada has there been such unanimity of opinion as on that of the necessity for Senate reform. Parliament spends taxpayer dollars is important. It is probably the single most important thing we can do in the House. The reason they The book he quoted was entitled, The Unreformed Senate Of proposed this motion was as a communications gimmick. That is Canada, by Robert A. Mackay. It was written in 1926. I do not think what I am saying, and I think it is clear to everyone paying attention. I can make it any more clear how vital these reforms are. We need change in the Senate, but not the sort the NDP proposes. For all the NDP's talk about democracy and accountability to Canadians and consulting with Canadians, it is just doing this to get The way forward is one that addresses the institution's short- more media attention. Regardless of the merits of the Senate, it is comings but strengthens it. That is what our government believes. part of this institution and this Parliament and is part of the fabric of That is what I believe. That is why I am proud to support our vision our constitution. Our institutions and our constitution deserve better for Senate reform. than the NDP's attempt to score a few more media points. Our government believes that Senate reform is needed now, and If I recall correctly, just a few weeks ago, the NDP leader we are committed to pursuing a practical, reasonable approach to announced his grand plan to go across Canada to consult Canadians reform. Improving our democratic institution is a significant and convince them that the NDP's position is a plan. Is he done responsibility. I am privileged to work alongside my hon. colleagues already? Is the NDP's nationwide consultation process finished after to meet this common objective. I encourage everyone to work a couple of weeks? Has he forgotten about the Supreme Court of towards achieving these reforms and giving Canadians a stronger Canada and the reference it is considering this fall? Do the opinions voice in determining who represents them in the Senate. of the Supreme Court, the provinces and Canadians across the country matter to the NDP? If its idea of a comprehensive Our plan is reasonable and achievable, and we are eagerly consultation process is a press conference, then a gimmick motion awaiting the opinion of the Supreme Court so we can move forward, in the House, I am not sure it cares about what anyone else thinks at confident in the legitimacy of our efforts. all. ● (1815) ● (1810) [Translation] Again, the NDP is taking the easy way out and is ducking the hard work. To them, it is better to give up than to work together. That is Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what this motion says. It says that they are the NDP and they give through our motion to cut off funding to the Senate, it is clear that up. This is the best they can come up with, and they are not even we, the NDP, are trying to do what is best for the taxpayers by saving going to go through with their promise of a national consultation. them $92 million a year.

De-funding is not a plan. It is resignation and a declaration of Can my Conservative colleague tell us why the Liberals are in failure. It is an admission that Canadians cannot be trusted if they are favour of the status quo and why the Conservatives are still standing asked what they want to do with the Senate and that the provinces do behind dishonest senators? not deserve to have a say in who represents their unique interests. [English] To take away the Senate, without significant other reforms, would Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned saving seriously damage the representation of a large section of our country money. in our Parliament. If we abolish or de-fund the Senate without doing the hard work of consultation and negotiation, we lose this We have a Constitution, and we need to respect our Constitution. representation too. While according to polls, many Canadians might We need to have a process in place if we want to reform and change want the Senate abolished, just as many Canadians want the Senate things. The NDP motion put forward on de-funding the Senate is not reformed. a solution. I am an engineer. This is failure. 17742 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it jamming them in there like there is no tomorrow. I guess if that is job is interesting. Here we have a motion that, I agree, is a bit of a creation, then they can add those 60-odd members to the number that gimmick. A joke of a motion, I think, summarizes it quite well. they make up all the time. We have many different issues before us. Here we are in the last To my friend down the end for Winnipeg North, he has to get with days prior to the summer break with the last opposition motion. We the 21st century. The bottom line is, the Senate is an archaic could be dealing with things that are related to jobs, health care or a institution. If they are not paid as of July 1, if they go on strike, the litany of issues. Question period after question period was on the government can do what it has done to everyone else who went on Prime Minister's Office and the $90,000 that was given to a strike in the public service and legislate them back to work. Let us particular senator. However, the NDP come up with a deceptive see if they can do that. Let us see if they can manage that. If that is motion that really makes no sense whatsoever. what you want to do— If the New Democrats wanted to be honest with Canadians they The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Pickering— would realize that what they are proposing is just not viable, it is not Scarborough East. doable. Recognizing that this motion attempts to do something that Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Thank you Mr. Speaker. To the member, is impossible to implement, even if it passes, not only shows that the thank you for the question and the passion you are showing for the New Democrats do not understand the process of administration but Senate. The fact that you would like to do something— it also highlights the fact that they do not understand that there is a constitutional requirement in order to— The Deputy Speaker: I caution the member to direct his ● (1820) comments to the Chair and not to the individual member. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Pickering— Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Here Scarborough East. we are and we are serious. We have a proposal. We have a plan. The Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have a Constitu- NDP has a plan to de-fund the Senate. What kind of plan is this? I tion, and we need to respect it. am just asking the hon. member to answer this question for Canadians. We are not here to make communication and to have a I think that our proposal to the Supreme Court is a great proposal. Muppet Show. We are serious here. We are elected by people to do The Supreme Court can provide us with a ruling on how to reform or things by the Constitution as was written. abolish the Senate. ● (1825) The Supreme Court is part of our democratic institutions. Let us Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, find out what it has to say and not go the easy way of playing I would like to address my question to Bill C-7 and what is being gimmicks and communication exercises, which does not serve described in this chamber as though it is Senate reform. I think it is Canadians. actually a series of half measures that make a dog's breakfast and we Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister cannot call that Senate reform. It would mandate provinces with no of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the help for their expenses to hold elections for senators. member for Pickering—Scarborough East for a very articulate and well thought out speech in terms of what the responsibilities are, The rules, for instance, for campaign financing would vary from what the Constitution demands and where our government is province to province. Senator by senator would have different rules planning to go. on which their election was run. Municipal elections were also considered, but in municipal elections people can vote if they have a I would like to ask the member this: if we were as irresponsible as property inside the city limit, but they might have a residence the NDP and actually voted for this motion, what would the practical somewhere else, so it forces the province to try to eliminate people outcomes be and how would this actually completely impede the who might vote twice for a senator of choice. At the end of all this ability of our government and our country to continue to do the mess, there would be a list from which the Prime Minister may or important work we need to do? may not, at his discretion, pick someone or not. It is not reform, it is Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, what would happen if we just public relations. supported the NDP motion? We would create unemployment as Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that our there are 400 people who are supporting the Senate. They would be government has a plan. The NDP only criticizes. It does not have a unemployed. Is it the policy of the NDP to lose jobs instead of plan. Its plan is to de-fund the Senate, throw staff and so on out of creating jobs? work. New Democrats do not care. We have a plan. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the hon. member The Deputy Speaker: Order. Questions and comments, the hon. for Ottawa—Orléans. We only have a little over a minute, so a 30- member for Welland. second question. Mr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have Mr. Royal Galipeau: I was not rising on questions and listened, quite frankly, ad nauseam to the job creation plans of this comments, sir. I was rising on a point of order, so I will wait my turn. government, but this is the first time I have ever heard that the Senate is a job creation plan. However, there is no question in my mind that The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the it is. There is no doubt about it, when the Conservatives have been Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17743

Business of Supply Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister And five or more members having risen: of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have to just comment that when the member for ● (1830) Markham—Unionville talked earlier and he called this motion embarrassing, farcical and idiotic, he was dead-on. I do not think in [Translation] the 12 years that I have been here I have ever seen anything so asinine. When I had the opportunity to hear— The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), a The Deputy Speaker: There has already been one ruling from the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until later today. Chair about the language in the House at this time. I would caution all members to stay within parliamentary language. We have hardly *** any time left. Could I have a question so the member can respond? Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to any [English] individual member or their behaviour here. I was talking about a motion in the House of Commons. When the member for Markham MAIN ESTIMATES 2013-14 —Unionville went through the list of consequences of this motion, Canadians could not reach any other conclusion but this is CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—THE SENATE ridiculous. My colleague talked about this being a media stunt. I would like him to address the issue. How could any journalist with any integrity see this as anything but ludicrous? Hon. Tim Uppal (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: Mr. Corneliu Chisu: Mr. Speaker, I will say only a couple of words from Cicero: That Vote 1, in the amount of $58,169,816, under PARLIAMENT — The Senate — Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, [Member spoke in Latin, as follows:] 2014, be concurred in. Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? He said: Mr. Speaker, reform of the Senate has been debated in the Mr. Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for House of Commons and around kitchen tables in homes across the the admonition that you gave to my colleague from Pickering— country since shortly after the Fathers of Confederation met to Scarborough East. Of course, when he speaks he should address the decide how Canada would be governed. All of us here today who Chair and only the Chair and should never use the second person, have the privilege to take our seats in Canada's House of Commons, only the third person, but if it is true for him, it is also true for the representing our constituents and voting on decisions that will make member for Welland who had spoken only instants before and our country stronger, should think about them and give them our without any admonition. There should be a single standard for all thanks. I know there were those who said it could not be done, or members on both sides of the House. many said it should not be done, but there were enough who could The Deputy Speaker: I can assure the member for Ottawa— see past the challenges and were willing to stake out bold policy Orléans that I and all other occupants of this chair treat everybody challenges to create Canada. equally. If the member for Welland did in fact use the individual “you”, I did not hear it, because there was a lot of noise in the House We are still a young country, but if the Fathers of Confederation at that time. could see us now they would be proud. They would see that their It being 6:30 p.m., and today being the final supply day in the bold efforts against the status quo have led to a strong stable nation, period ending June, 23, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the which is the envy of the world, and a beacon of peace, security and proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose economic prosperity. However, what they would also see is a of the opposition motion. country that has changed since the soot-filled candlelit debates that the first MPs would have had in the House of Commons. Things The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt have changed. Canada has changed. However, our Senate has not the motion? changed. Some hon. members: Agreed. Throughout our history, there have been those on the side of Some hon. members: No. reforming the Senate and those who have wanted to protect the status The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will quo. It disappoints me to say that the protectors of the Senate have please say yea. most often won that day. I do not know why, and I am not sure if Canadians know why either. When the only Senate reform measure Some hon. members: Yea. we can point to throughout our nation's history is a reduction from lifetime appointments to a maximum term of 45 years, members can The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. appreciate the difficulties that Senate reformers have faced. For me, Some hon. members: Nay. it only gives me more resolve to take the first steps to reform the Senate. It is the right thing to do, and it is what Canadians want us to The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. do. 17744 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply The status quo in the Senate is not acceptable. We have heard To prove our commitment to either fixing or ridding ourselves of from Canadians that they want the Senate to change. Our the Senate, we decided to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for an government recognizes that the Senate as it stands today must opinion on Parliament's authority to make these meaningful changes. either change or, like the upper Houses of our provinces, vanish. For the first time in a generation, we asked the Supreme Court's Canadians know that the Conservative Party is the only one that has opinion on what is required to reform the Senate and what is required a real plan to make the changes that are so desperately needed. to abolish the Senate. The aim in seeking a reference to the Supreme Senate reform is fundamental to our party. It is at our core. Our Court of Canada is to accelerate the pace of Senate reform and to lay government has long believed that the Senate's status quo is the foundation for further reform to the Senate. It sends a strong unacceptable and therefore it must change in order to reach its full signal to Canadians that we are ready to move forward, confident in potential as an accountable and democratic institution. the legitimacy and strength of our reforms. The alternative is the continuation of a situation where senators are appointed for long terms without any democratic mandate. We have said “enough”, and Canadians are with us in saying no to the The questions referred to the Supreme Court reflect the status quo in the Senate. It is our government that has put forward government's position that meaningful change to the Senate can be proposals to elect senators and to limit their term to nine years, as achieved within Parliament's authority. As I have said before, the well as measures to ensure tough spending oversight. These Senate must reform or vanish. The questions asked of the Supreme measures would immediately increase the effectiveness and Court seek legal certainty on the constitutional amending procedure legitimacy of our upper chamber. They would drag the Senate into for term limits for senators, democratic selection of senate nominees, the 21st century. Our proposals would deliver meaningful change net worth and property qualifications for senators, and abolition of within Parliament's authority to act now. Our new measures would the Senate. We are eagerly waiting the Supreme Court's opinion on make the upper chamber more accountable, more legitimate and these important issues. We said we would reform the Senate, and we more democratic. will deliver. Term limits in the Senate would also work hand in hand with our efforts to make government more representative. When senators have to be replaced every nine years, we would not have a Until the Supreme Court returns its opinion, we will continue to representative body that looks like Canada did fifty years ago. These bring forward measures to strengthen the accountability of senators are the most recent of the practical changes that we propose in order to taxpayers, including when the Senate adopted eleven tough new to make our democratic institutions serve Canadians better. accountability rules governing travel and expenses that were put However, change cannot come slowly enough for the Liberals and forward last week by Conservative senators. These strong new the New Democrats. Through nearly 20 hours of debate, over 7 days, measures will improve accountability and prevent abuse. we have heard opposition member after opposition member tell us why reforming the Senate was not possible. This is despite the fact that our government has received a strong mandate from Canadians We said we would fix the Senate's rules governing travel and to reform the Senate and, in fact, already have hard-working elected expenses, and we delivered. Yesterday the Leader of the Government senators representing their provinces in the Senate. in the Senate introduced a motion asking the Auditor General of ● (1835) Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses. These are strong measures that will protect taxpayers, and I outlined these All we learned from those seven days of debate was that the NDP improvements earlier today. and the Liberals would use any tactic to maintain the status quo and to block the reform that Canadians have been demanding. We believe that encouraging provinces to elect senators and setting nine-year term limits are both reasonable measures that can I spoke earlier about the protectors of the Senate, those who want be enacted within Parliament's authority. We have a plan. We have the status quo; those who say it should not be done or it cannot be meaningful legislation. We have the support of Canadians. done. While we have been moving Senate reform forward with meaningful proposals, a reference to seek clarity from the Supreme What we did not have was an opposition who shared our urgent Court and a tough new accountability rules, the Liberal leader and belief that Senate reform is critically necessary and immediately his party have once again staked the claim as the champion of the possible. Let us be clear. Our reforms are reasonable and achievable, status quo in the Senate. and they lead us on the path to further reforms. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Senate must be reformed or it must be abolished. While we are committed to debating the merits of Senate reform The Liberals go so far as to demand that the Senate remain and specific proposals in actual legislation, the NDP and the Liberals unelected and unaccountable because it is an advantage for Quebec. are committed to telling us why they think our actions are This has come after 13 years of inaction, where the Liberal Party unconstitutional. It is not that they have a plan themselves. They took every opportunity to protect the Senate from any and all reform. did not have a plan and they still do not have a plan. We are the only Actually, it is probably closer to a hundred years. The Liberals have party with a plan. abused the Senate in its current form for the past three generations. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17745

Business of Supply ● (1840) However, we can see where the NDP's priorities are. It could have chosen to use its debate time today on the important economic issues I can see why the Liberals are attracted to the status quo, but they that Canadians continue to care about, such as, indexing tax fund certainly had an option. In all their years in office, they could have payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in munici- taken the initiative to correct the Senate. They could have admitted palities right across the country, reforming the temporary foreign that it was wrong for Canada and Canadians, and tackled this worker program to ensure Canadians are given the first crack at democratic deficit. They had an option to stand up, but they chose to available jobs, expanding tax relief for home care services to better say yes to the old attitudes and the entrenched entitlements of the meet the health care needs of Canadians, and removing tariffs on Liberal Party. It is time for the Liberal Party to stop protecting the important imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic status quo and to support our efforts for a more accountable, equipment. democratic, and representative upper house. While we are focused on growing the Canadian economy and jobs The Conservative plan to reform the Senate is clear and real. Our in the face of ongoing global economic challenges, the NDP keeps government wants to see changes in the Senate. The Liberals only pushing job-killing carbon taxes and picking constitutional fights. seem to want it to remain the same. While the Liberals continue to stake out and vigorously defend the position of the status quo, the Canadians know full well that the NDP's claim that it wants to opportunistic NDP has shown, once more, that there is no plan too abolish the Senate is nothing more than a gimmick. The NDP has risky for it. never brought forward a serious proposal, and Canadians know that While Conservative members have been squarely focused on what it has no intention of ever doing so. They know its position is matters to Canadians, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, the unrealistic and that the NDP is making it up as it goes along. NDP has decided to advance a gimmicky proposal to unilaterally ● (1845) defund the Senate. I am surprised that the NDP chose to debate its real record on the To really appreciate the NDP's logic, I think it is worth reviewing Senate today. Here are the facts. the statements made by the NDP's senior treasury board critic, the member for Pontiac, just yesterday. When asked about the In 2008, the NDP worked out a deal to appoint its own senators constitutional requirement to have the Senate pass legislation, he when it conspired with the Liberals and the Bloc to form a coalition. said: There's no reason why the Senate can't do its job without funds. It's not an issue of The Leader of the Opposition has claimed to support abolition, yet constitutionality. introduced a bill to give the Senate more powers.

Listening to the NDP say that the Constitution is no big deal is The NDP democratic reform critic, the member for Toronto— also concerning. Canadians are learning every day how risky the Danforth, provided further proof of the NDP's lack of sincerity when NDP and its ideas really are. To him the upper chamber is rotten to he said that the NDP is open to any kind of reasonable Senate the core, as the member has stated, casting a very wide net. The reform. member for Pontiac is even willing to strip the jobs of some 400 Senate employees, who have absolutely nothing to do with recent On March 4, 2013, the NDP brought forward a motion calling on events in the Senate. the government to consult with the provinces and territories on the steps necessary to abolish the Senate. To the NDP, it seems that the end always justifies the means. Better yet, when the member opposite was called out by his Two weeks ago, the NDP launched a website and said it would interviewer for being heavy-handed, he said that employees and start a discussion with the provinces on whether there was support, senators could do some volunteer work. He expects our Senate as required by the Constitution, for abolition. employees to come to work but not get paid. Ask the member for Toronto Centre how that went for them. In January of this last year, the leader of the NDP said that abolition of the Senate would be a profound constitutional change The NDP knows that its motion is a gimmick and it will not work. and that his party and country had other priorities before opening up Canadians are more than smart enough to see through the NDP's a constitutional debate. opportunism. It should trouble Canadians that the NDP has chosen to debate this gimmick that it knows will not work instead of important The NDP record on Senate reform can be summed up in four issues like job creation and economic growth. However, we should points. perhaps not be surprised that the NDP does not want to talk about the risky tax plan. First, it claims it will abolish the place.

Our government's priorities are unchanged. The economy remains Second, the NDP repeatedly acknowledges that it does not have our top priority. Our Conservative government is focused on what the constitutionally required support to actually abolish the Senate. matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We are proud of our record. Thanks to Canada's Third, it obstructs every government effort to bring accountability economic action plan, under our watch Canada has created over and transparency to a reformed Senate. 900,000 net new jobs since the depths of the global recession. That is the best job creation record in the G7. Fourth, it proposes gimmicky motions that it knows will not work. 17746 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply The NDP has frequently admitted that it needs the support of the Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the member talks about a solution provinces and territories to abolish the Senate, support that it knows and says that the Senate must change. Well, we also say that the it does not have. Senate must change. Unfortunately, the member and his party have brought forward no real plan to change anything in the Senate. They The NDP's grand consultation with Canadians and the provinces bring forward a political stunt, a gimmick. It is deceptive and it is was announced just two weeks ago. Is that grand consultation clearly unconstitutional. finished already? Did it take just two weeks? Did the NDP members even talk to anyone? Perhaps they have abandoned that consultation The member just said that he has been here for 16 years. I will because they did not hear what they wanted to hear. We can only give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows that what they have guess, as it took so little time. brought forward is unconstitutional. He knows it will not work. The NDP is just being deceptive and not being honest with Canadians. Whatever the reason, it shows that the NDP is just not serious when it talks about the Senate. It does not matter whether it is talking The fact is that we as a government, as a party, have a real plan to about consultations or funding or anything else; it is just not serious. reform the Senate. It would include elections, term limits so that we That is why it has never put forward a legitimate plan to reform the can regularly refresh the Senate and tough new spending account- Senate. ability rules. We must then ask ourselves this simple question: is the status quo We have a plan. Unfortunately, all the NDP has is a gimmick. good enough? Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, It is clear that while there may be different approaches to solving I agree with many parts of the minister's presentation. Some I the problem, we know that the status quo is not in the interests of thought were unnecessary. If a minister wants to be taken seriously Canadians. Our government believes that Senate reform is needed about advancing legislation, to withdraw rhetoric out of comments now. Canadians deserve better. is, I think, important. In closing, we are the only party with a real plan to reform the That said, he understands fully that if there to be significant Senate. My constituents tell me that they want change. Canadians change brought upon the Senate, it would require the support of want change. provinces. That is why you identify this motion as a gimmick, and I ● (1850) do not discount your comment on it. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the If I could just come shortly to my question— parliamentary secretary's comments would be marginally more plausible if it were not for the fact that he serves under the most The Deputy Speaker: Order. profligate and prolific abuser of the powers of the Senate in Canadian history. The member is again repeating what we have had three times already in less than an hour. He is addressing comments to another He should be willing to admit that he and his party are part of the member of the House rather than through the Chair. problem, not part of the solution. It would be almost comical, if it Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, were not so sad, to watch successive Conservative and Liberal the past minister of intergovernmental affairs, Peter Penashue, would members of Parliament stand up here and squirm, wriggle and tie have been charged with the responsibility to deal with provinces on themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible, when it is as such issues. I cannot ask him that question because he is no longer plain as the nose on one's face that the Senate of Canada is beyond here. redemption. I have not been here that long, but I have been here for 16 years However, would he have been charged with consulting with the and I have been watching these attempts to reform the Senate. Since provinces? Would he have had the opportunity to meet with the 1972, there have been 28 significant attempts to constitutionally provinces? Indeed, if those types of meetings took place, would the reform the Senate, and 28 times they have failed. minister share with us where the provinces are with this issue? ● (1855) The position of our party has been consistent since 1933. In fact, the second term in our founding constitution, the second item for Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, the member took objection to both the CCF and the NDP, is to abolish the Senate. We have been something in my speech. I suspect it was that I raised the issue that consistent. the leader of the Liberal Party said he supports the status quo in the Senate because it is better for Quebec. I do take great offence to that My colleague is correct that back in 1867, working people comment, and that is why I raised it. immediately objected to the creation of a House of Lords. The founding fathers believed Canada needed an aristocracy because we Right across the country, we do have support for Senate reform. had none, so they created an imitation of the House of Lords to make Coming from Alberta, I am very proud to say that our province holds sure that the great unwashed did not pass any bills that might elections for senators. We give Albertans an opportunity to have a inadvertently share the wealth of the nation. They needed to— say in who represents them in the Senate. British Columbia has The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. looked at legislation. Saskatchewan has passed legislation. We are seeing out east in the Maritimes as well that New Brunswick is now The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform. putting forward legislation to have elections, so we do have support. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17747

Business of Supply However, what we really need is a serious plan. What we see goes right back to the NDP's economic policies. They are not real today from the NDP is not a serious plan. Again, it is a gimmick. plans, and it is obvious that the New Democrats are just not ready to govern. We have a serious plan that we put forward to Parliament, a bill. Unfortunately, that was delayed and stalled by the opposition. We have now put forward some questions to the Supreme Court to get We cannot just turn off the tap. We cannot just change the clarity on Parliament's authority to make these changes. fundamental characteristic of the Senate without making some amendments to the Constitution and without consulting the The Prime Minister has been clear that if we cannot reform the provinces. Senate, it must be abolished, and that is what we are going to do. Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Their leader has said that before, and now, today, more or less of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the because of opportunity, they are putting this measure forward. minister for again clearly articulating our position on moving forward with Senate reform. It has certainly been a long-standing commitment. No one ever said it would be an easy task. I suppose I would have a lot more respect for the NDP if they wanted to that if it were an easy task, it would be done. debate such things as economic bills today. There is crime legislation we could debate. There are many other issues that are important to We have talked about the NDP and what was really a very Canadians that we could be debating today instead of this silly gimmicky approach. I cannot think it was a very serious approach. gimmick that they have put forward. However, as a westerner, I have to say I was most offended by the ● (1900) comments of the Liberal leader on why we should maintain the status quo. Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the I would ask the minister to contrast the Liberal approach to the interest of clarity and just to keep people posted on what is really Senate versus our plan to move forward. It is not an easy task, but we going on tonight, we had a debate earlier on an opposition day are moving forward. motion put forward by the NDP. What we are debating now, and we should not confuse the two, is that we were asked, in the course of Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I was quite approving the main estimates, the instrument of supply for the taken aback as well. For the Liberal leader to come forward and say Government of Canada, to vote to approve $58,169,816 funding for that the Liberals support the status quo because it is of benefit to the Senate. Quebec is just unfortunate and has no place here. The leader pits one part of the country against another. It is just not responsible. I put forward a motion to pull that money out of the main Therein lies the challenge with Senate reform itself. The challenge estimates and consider it as a separate vote so we might consider, on for close to 100 years has been people who support the status quo, behalf of the constituents that we represent, if this chamber really people who want to see the Senate continue the way it is today. wanted tonight to vote for and approve another $58,169,816 for the We as a government, as a party, have been very clear. We want to Senate of Canada. I wish it was a larger figure. I wish we could vote reform the Senate to be more democratic and more accountable. We tonight at 10 o'clock on the whole amount that this money pit sucks put forward plans for elections to allow Canadians to have a say in up every year, but $58 million, sadly, is the only amount that we deal who represents them in the Senate and plans for implementing term with as a voted appropriation. The rest is statutory. That is what we limits for senators so that we can regularly refresh the Senate. We are faced with tonight. have also presented tough new spending rules so that there is more Senate accountability to taxpayers. This is the debate we are having on behalf of our constituents. Do we, or do we not, want to keep shovelling wheelbarrows full of We have a plan and we are moving forward with that plan. money down the hallway and dumping it into that black hole, that [Translation] money pit of the Senate. That place is insatiable. It will gobble up Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speak- every nickel we put there and there will be nothing to show for it er, the mayors in my riding work hard every day. Only 21 of the except for a bunch of high flying, globe trotting, semi diplomat mayors of these 23 municipalities receive a salary. These people senators. The only thing they like doing more than fundraising for truly represent the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. They work hard the parties they represent is flying around the world on the taxpayers' for no pay. They receive an optional salary of roughly $17,000 or dollar as some kind of a quasi diplomat. $20,000. That is not much for those who do real work on the ground. The minister says this is a gimmick. I think it is a pretty clear plan. I will be the first to concede that it is difficult to abolish the Senate We will stop providing money to the Senate in order to address other by constitutional amendment. That would take a referendum put to priorities in the country. It is possible to reduce the amount of money the people of Canada. Perhaps in the 2015 election it might be a that goes to the Senate. good addition to ask the people of Canada what their wishes are at that point in time. However, one thing we can do tonight is cut off its [English] blood supply. We can throttle it. We can shake it up. We can tell it in Hon. Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the NDP no uncertain terms that we are sick and tired of the shenanigans in would consider what they have put forward today a real plan. This the other place. 17748 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply I come from a time when we were not allowed to say the word I remember when Deborah Grey bought 50 plastic pigs and placed Senate in the House of Commons. You, Mr. Speaker, would have them on the lawn in front of the Senate. The imagery I think she was called me out of order if I used the word Senate, never mind trying to invoke, and correct me if I am wrong, was probably pigs at criticizing it. That place has fallen into such disrepute right across the the trough. It is an unkind comparison perhaps, but it was her way of country that even that rule is now out the window. The whole graphically illustrating what the Canadian public was feeling. That country is universally condemning and shouting it from the rooftops goes back 15 years. There is nothing new about that kind of that they have had enough. They will not tolerate it anymore. They misbehaviour. are sick of shovelling money into the Senate. It has gone from an impediment to democracy to an expensive nuisance to a national However, the expense scandals pale in comparison to what is disgrace, and that is where we are right now. really wrong with the Senate and that is why the NDP, the CCF before it and the Independent Labour Party before that when J.S. Frankly, the monkey business around a few expense accounts is Woodsworth was elected in 1921, were consistent in that they the least of the problem here, because there is absolutely nothing wanted the Senate abolished. It was a party of the people. It is natural new about senators fudging expense accounts and wasting their that the party of the people would oppose the Senate. dough. As I said in earlier comments, one of the main reasons for Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I establishing the Senate in 1867 was that the ruling class realized that have been listening to this debate for the last number of hours, both they needed an equivalent of the House of Lords. We had no the previous debate on the motion put by the opposition and the established aristocracy so one would have to be created to ensure debate currently on vote 1 of the estimates. Clearly, we need to be that the great unwashed, that the working people of Canada, did not respectful of this institution of Parliament, which includes the pass any legislation that might interfere with their ability to line their Queen, the House of Commons and the Senate. pockets with the resources of this great nation and they used their veto extensively. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance on this, but I quote from page 614 of the rules of the House, from O'Brien and In those early days, fully 10% of all legislation passed by the Bosc. It says: House of Commons was vetoed. Fully, 25% of it was amended Disrespectful reflections on Parliament as a whole, or on the House and the Senate significantly by the other chamber before it was allowed to succeed. individually are not permitted. It managed to gut and veto anything that might have been of benefit to the ordinary, freely-elected representatives of the people in the I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask members in the chamber House of Commons. That was why it was created. It is no wonder during this debate on the vote to exercise restraint in their reflections we were opposed to it and objected to it. Believe me, that attitude on this institution. and atmosphere continues to this day. ● (1905) In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of the few New The Deputy Speaker: I think the difficulty we are having from Democrats who was in favour of Senate reform instead of Senate the Chair, and this is the second time it has been raised in the House abolition as a young parliamentarian. I took part in something called today in terms of language being used vis-à-vis the other House, is the Charlottetown accord constituent assemblies in 1992. I answered that although we have clear historical rulings, the reality has been a letter to The Globe and Mail as a working carpenter, as an ordinary that the practice with regard to comments regarding the other House Canadian, to see if I would be interested in this. There were 160 have been allowed to expand quite dramatically over the last decade Canadians chosen from all walks of life. We visited six different in this House. cities over six months and studied the Constitution and the Senate in great deal with the leading constitutional experts of the day. For six However, I would caution the member for Winnipeg Centre to try months, we were fully immersed in all the complexities and nuances to moderate the tone and at least stay within some reasonable of intergovernmental affairs, the jurisdictional powers of the Senate parameters, understanding the emotion that this issue is generating. and the House, the configuration of the Senate and whether the Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that consideration. I Senate should succeed. would just remind my colleague of the doctrine of estoppel, but he At that time, I believed the Senate could be reformed and it had can look that up later. merit, not because of the merit or the virtues of it but for one simple The monkey business around misbehaviour by senators is the least reason, and that being that in 1993 my party lost official party status, of the problems with the Senate. There is nothing new about senators the party to which that I actively belonged. We were reduced to nine misbehaving. seats. I remember a time when the Reform Party and the Canadian The Conservative Party of Canada suffered its worst defeat in Alliance guys brought a Mexican mariachi band and a bunch of Canadian history. It was reduced to two seats. Its caucus— straw hats in front of the Senate and were doing a Mexican hat dance An hon. member: Oh, oh! to protest the behaviour of one senator who had established himself on a beach in Mexico and was pulling down a Senate salary. That Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is bad- was Randy White, Monte Solberg, the current Minister of mouthing me over there, but whomever it is has a lot of lip and a lot Immigration, Rahim Jaffer. Those guys were a lot of fun, and they of nerve too. The member might get a fat lip by the time it is were right at that time. finished. No, I would not say that. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17749

Business of Supply The Conservative Party of Canada was reduced to two seats, but four employees and with their travel privileges, doing full-time its caucus was 50 people because it had 48 senators and all their partisan work out of the Senate. staff, resources and travel abilities. That is like 100 people fully salaried and fully staffed able to rebuild— That offended the sensibilities of anybody who considered ● (1910) themselves a democrat. It should rattle the very foundations of confidence in our democratic institutions. There has been no more Mr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take profligate abuse of the Senate. The whole war room was now umbrage with what my colleague is saying. Clearly, his revisionist chocked full. sense of history is not being genuine with this chamber. The Conservative Party of Canada was founded upon two political He was not finished there. The Prime Minister has appointed some parties, the Reform Party of Canada and the Progressive Con- 50 senators. He was thumbing his nose. We now have full-time party servative Party of Canada. In that particular election, I think the fundraisers criss-crossing the country on the taxpayers' dime, cumulative effect of those two numbers was far greater than two. engaged in purely partisan political activity. If there was any justification for a Senate, that was forgotten long ago. The Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order. It is a point for debate, perhaps challenging some of the analysis of the member The Liberals are no better. Both the chair and the co-chair of their for Winnipeg Centre. national campaign happen to be senators. I will not name them. The Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order— Conservative that ran the entire Manitoba provincial election was a The Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. We will resume sitting senator. His salary should go against the spending limits of debate with the member for Winnipeg Centre. those other members of Parliament running. Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it was the Progressive Con- Let us face it, the Duffy affair was only the tip of the iceberg. That servative Party that was defeated, from 202 seats down to 2. It was is what really drew the public's attention. That was the catalyst that the worst defeat in Canadian history. helped us focus down on what was really wrong here. This $90,000 However, their caucus remained at roughly 50 people, because soft landing was not really about making him whole, because of the they had all these senators. I said to myself, “Self, it would not have money he had to shell out. It was to keep his mouth shut for the hurt if we had a dozen or so senators in the other chamber to help us extent of the political interference by senators in election campaigns, live through those dark years when we were reduced to nine seats”. which was widespread throughout the country.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis: I'll give you some. While I am on that point, if people here really believe that Nigel Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, again, we are getting some cheeky Wright dug into his own pocket and gave $90,000 of his after-tax lip from behind me. You might want to call them to order at some earnings to Mike Duffy, they are nuttier than a porta-potty at a point during my remarks. If you do not, I will. peanut farm. Anybody with any common sense would know that that money will come from the Conservative fund of which Nigel Wright I had an open mind when in 2006, the Prime Minister introduced was a director for seven years and Senator Irv Gerstein is the other their first Senate reform amendments. I actually attended the Senate director. with him. We were wearing the same tie that day, and I remember it quite well. That was it for me. I was absolutely fed up with this notion. I believe it is fitting and appropriate and maybe even poetic justice I was interested to see if Senate reform was possible. We had done that the Prime Minister's monumental hypocrisy associated with the our research. We knew that 28 times since 1972, significant attempts Senate is the one thing that has finally come to bite him in the what had been made to constitutionally amend the Senate, all of which rhymes with gas. failed. For me, that same Prime Minister, who I actually had some This is the first thing that turned me off the Senate forever. confidence might take a shot at the Senate, let us down so profoundly that he was responsible for my joining the prevailing The second thing, though, was the direct political interference by attitude of the party to which I belong. the unelected, undemocratic Senate with the work and activity of the elected chamber where we as an elected House of Commons and The turning point for me was twofold. representative of people passed the only piece of climate change legislation in the 39th, 40th or the 41st Parliament. First, the Prime Minister, in a petulant huff, decided that if he could not beat them, he would join them. As I said earlier, he became ● (1915) the most profligate serial offender in Canadian history in terms of stacking the Senate with his party hacks and flaks and bagmen and It was two years of negotiating and pushing by the former leader failed candidates. He appointed the president of the Conservative of the NDP, Jack Layton, that finally got this bill through, that finally Party. He appointed the chief campaign manager of the Conservative got the approval of all the parties in the House of Commons. It Party. He appointed the communications director of the Conservative wound up in the Senate, and without a single hour of debate or a Party. He appointed the senior bagman of the Conservative Party. single witness heard at committee, senators vetoed it and killed that The whole Conservative war room was now fully staffed and funded bill. Now Canada, to its great shame, has no national climate change by the Canadian taxpayer with not only their salary, but with their policy whatsoever. 17750 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Even worse, just to add insult to injury, and what compounds the If there were no other reason to deny it any money, it is that offence, in my view, is that the other bill the senators unilaterally and inherent conflict of interest that comes from what I call an arbitrarily vetoed was the HIV-AIDS drugs for Africa bill. That was institutionalized conflict that is the Senate of Canada. a real classy choice. They had no right to unilaterally and arbitrarily block and interfere with the will of the democratically elected ● (1920) members of the House of Commons. No one elected them to make legislation. No one gave them a mandate or the legitimacy to Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my undermine democracy and act as stooges for the PMO. The Senate is friend's remarks with a mixture of amusement and serious concern not a chamber of any kind of thought, never mind sober thought. about the content of his remarks and the purpose of his motion.

In the same vein, more and more pieces of legislation are Like many members, I was in this House on March 7 when the originating in the Senate. As I say, I this is my sixth term. I have seen member for Winnipeg Centre rose in this House on a question of a lot of legislation come and go. It used to be a very rare thing when privilege in relation to laws, bills or motions before this House a bill would come to the House of Commons labelled S-10, S-11, potentially being unconstitutional. It offended his privilege, yet we S-12, S-13. Now the Senate is cranking them out like there is no are debating a motion brought by the same member today that is tomorrow. Half the legislation we deal with originates in the other clearly unconstitutional and ultra vires. chamber. The stuff we get to deal with is lumped together in an omnibus bill, 60 or 70 pieces of legislation all packed into one, on Leaving aside the personal slights and slagging the member has which we get a few hours of debate and a few witnesses at done here, I would like him to reflect on his question of privilege committee. The substantive material is all being generated in the from March 7 and ask if his motion today is not violating the very Senate. Again, no one elected senators to make legislation. No one privilege he raised on March 7. gave them the authority or mandate to make legislation. It offends the sensibilities of any person who considers him or herself a Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague for democrat. Durham is new here, but I challenge him to find what is unconstitutional about moving a motion to have vote 1 pulled from When senators are not cranking out bills, they are gadding about the main estimates to be debated and voted on separately. That is all the world like a bunch of globe-trotting quasi-diplomats. They have my motion aspires to do. It is to have a separate vote on the money never seen a junket they did not like. They are always chock full of allocated for the Senate of Canada, the $58 million. I think he is the senators. We cannot afford that. We are broke. In case people forget, one who should maybe re-read what is constitutional and what is not. this is $58 million we have to borrow to shovel over there another wheelbarrow full of money. The Black Rod is going to knock on the Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. door and ask for his dough pretty soon, and these guys will dutifully Speaker, I like the member for Winnipeg Centre. He is chair of trudge down there and deliver to keep their political machine our committee. I would say that we are friends, but we do not bankrolled and funded, like an unfair competitive advantage, by the necessarily agree on everything. I would characterize his motion and Canadian taxpayer. Can people not see what is wrong with that? It is the NDP motion of today as nothing less than idiotic, and that is enough to drive a person crazy. being generous—

One thing that really bugs me about the senators is that they are The Deputy Speaker: This is now the fourth time. It is the third allowed to sit on boards of directors. The Senate of Canada is one time I have been up and the fourth time someone in this chair has big institutionalized conflict of interest. Let us look at one example. been up. We are trying to control the language within this House, Senator Trevor Eyton, a Conservative senator, is CEO and president and the use of the term “idiotic” is simply not acceptable when one is of one of the largest corporations in Canada, Brascan, which has describing legislation. I would ask all members, including the current been renamed Brookfield Asset Management. It happens to own member who is on his feet, to please temper their language. Royal LePage. By some happy coincidence, it keeps winning the relocation contract for the military and the RCMP. It is a multi- ● (1925) billion dollar contract. Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I want to be The Auditor General looked at it and said that the bid had been clear. I was not referring to the member with that adjective but rather rigged to give the contract to Royal LePage. It was offensive to to his motion. Shall we say, “foolish”, or “not a good motion”? everyone's sensibilities. Then the court looked at and said that the bid had been rigged and awarded $40 million in damages to the low I wonder if the member understands that according to Canada's bidder that should have won it, Envoy. Then, by some happy Constitution, every bill, including supply bills, in order to become coincidence again, for a third time, in 2009, the cabinet got directly law, must be passed by both Houses of Parliament. If the Senate no involved and made sure that Royal LePage, the very company this longer exists, these laws cannot be passed, which would mean that, guy was CEO of and for which he continued to be the chairman of as of April 1 of next year, the federal government would shut down. the board of directors into his Senate tenure, made sure that his There would be no more civil servants, and similarly, since the CRA company—let us face it; he has stock options in that company—got collects the taxes for most provinces, many of the provinces would the same contract again. That should offend one's sensibilities. have to shut down. Is this a sensible idea? June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17751

Business of Supply Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague came in late very capable committee chair on the government operations and maybe does not realize the content of my motion, which is that committee. we vote against and do not approve the $58 million of the voted appropriation. There is statutory funding for the Senate that we have Whether or not this motion is constitutional, it is a backdoor way no control over, and it will flow no matter how we go about tonight's of getting constitutional change. We starve an institution of funds, motion. we basically abolish the institution.

However, the member should consider the efficacy of the Senate. I My question for the member is about the nature of bicameralism. have a lot of respect for my colleague as well. However, does he Big countries in the world, especially federations, whether it is the really think it is right to have this taxpayer-supported, partisan United Kingdom, France, the United States, Australia, India or political machine over there, which is now running roughshod over Brazil, all have two Houses of Parliament. The only countries that do his group too, because they are in the minority, and which is not are small countries. Federations, especially, have two Houses in controlled by the PMO? their parliaments. The only big countries in the world that do not In whose interest is it to give this unfair competitive advantage to have second Houses are China and Iran. those two parties with their 50 or 60 salaried political fundraisers gallivanting around the country? Really, when we reflect on the Is the member suggesting that Canada should become more like matter, that is what is ridiculous and idiotic, in my view. China or Iran and have just a single House in Parliament? Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my ● (1930) colleague has mentioned a couple of bills that have been in the Senate that were not passed but were passed in the House of Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the love of my life, Jenni, is from Commons. New Zealand. I think that is a sensible little country, which does, in fact, have a unicameral system. Bill C-290, a single sports betting bill, was passed in the House of Commons unanimously on Friday. A number of members on the The Province of Manitoba abolished its Senate in 1876, and others Conservative side chose not to speak to the bill or stand up against it, were not far behind: Nova Scotia in 1928; Quebec in 1968. Never but when the bill went to the Senate, they actually tried to undermine mind having a Senate for the sake of having a Senate. What is it it. Now we have a situation where organized crime and offshore hoping to achieve? betting sources will have support against a bill that would balance the system. The idea of regional representation has kind of been put to bed as more powers have gone to the provinces. Capable, competent I would like my hon. member's opinion on the fact that we have a provincial legislatures now very capably and competently represent bill that was passed in the House of Commons, with no objection, the interests of their regions. We do not need this vestigial organ, as because no member stood up and voted against it, but it still has not the leader of my party calls it. It is an expensive nuisance, and passed the Senate. certainly, since it has been compromised and misused and abused to Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic to the situation such a great extent, it is an impediment to democracy and does not my colleague is in, but he has to understand that the Senate has enhance democracy. become an extension of the PMO. It operates under a shroud of Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I darkness, essentially. Nobody really pays any attention to what goes have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg. He mentioned on over there. That is where meritorious bills from the opposition go Nova Scotia.The Premier of Nova Scotia is NDP, and I am sure that to die. That is why they send them there, and that is where they the Premier of Nova Scotia will not agree with the motion put abuse them and misuse them. forward tonight. Nova Scotians will want to look at it, assess it and I am the first to admit that there is room for and maybe even a ensure that there is equal representation right across the country, benefit to some sort of consideration by some kind of council of especially for the small province of Nova Scotia. elders. Douglas Cuthand is an aboriginal writer and leader who wrote a very thoughtful piece in the Calgary newspaper suggesting Why have the member and his leader not talked to some of the that we might want to model ourselves on the way aboriginal people NDP premiers about what they think about the Senate? view their elders. A Mohawk leader named Rarihokwats wrote a Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, Premier Darrell Dexter favours very thoughtful consideration that perhaps the Companions of the Senate abolition and spoke to the matter just recently. The Province Order of Canada might be a suitable list where we might start of Manitoba favours abolition. The Premier of B.C. favours looking for a council of elders to give advice and counsel on policy abolition. The Premier of Saskatchewan favours abolition. The issues if we feel it is needed. former Liberal premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, clearly came There is nothing the Senate has ever done that could not be done out in favour of abolition. I could go on. There are actually quite a as well or better by others. There is nothing magical about the reports few premiers who favour abolition, including both majority NDP senators give or the policy investigations they write. governments in the country. Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre Speaker, I am very pleased to speak again on this motion, which for his comments. I have a certain level of respect for him. He is a is similar to the motion on which I spoke earlier today. 17752 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply I have several points. My main point is that it does not make any law, it is a constitutional law. It would require at least seven sense, because it would close down the Government of Canada and provinces and the federal government to change it. We have to wait many provincial governments. In Canada's Constitution, there is a before we proceed in a meaningful way to hear what the Supreme provision that laws of Canada have to be passed by both Houses of Court of Canada says. Parliament. That means that we could not vote on supply bills, on which we will be voting later tonight, that provide the money for the coming year if the Senate did not approve them. This is also highly disrespectful towards the provinces. At least If all of the Senate's money were taken away, the Senate would not seven of the provinces, ten in certain cases, have to give approval for be able to approve this legislation. As of April 1 next year, the constitutional changes in the Senate. For the NDP to simply present Government of Canada would be deprived of money. It would not be a motion to starve the Senate of its funds and think that will do it deprived of statutory programs, but money for the entire public does not respect provincial rights. The Senate is supposed to be a service. We would have no CRA, for example, because nobody body that represents provincial interests and the provinces are central could be employed there. What does the CRA do? It collects the to the determination of the makeup and rules governing the Senate. taxes not only at the federal level, but for all of the provinces as well, except for Quebec. It collects income tax, corporate income tax and HST for those provinces that have it. Not only would the federal government run out of money as of April 1, nine provinces would It really does not make sense to have a motion that disrespects the have a huge chunk of their revenues taken away by this action. Supreme Court and the provinces. As a result, the whole Government of Canada would grind to a halt. We must think of that. Do we want to find out what is going on through CBC? CBC gets huge subsidies, so it would not be able to The third problem is that this motion benefits the government continue. We would not have food inspection. We would not have all because it is a debate about the Senate and the government does not of the things that Canadians rely on. We would not even have mind that. The government quite likes that. The government has no employment insurance, OAS or things of that nature. While those problems with that. What the government does not want to do is to monies would be protected, because they are statutory, the people to debate the role of the Prime Minister and the role of the Prime administer them would all be gone because there would be no civil Minister's Office in the transfer of the $90,000 by Nigel Wright to service left. Senator Duffy. A motion that dealt with that, like calling for If foreigners wanted to help Canada in this government-less state, documents on this transfer of funds, would have been much more they could not go to our embassies abroad because we would not interesting from an opposition party's point of view than a harmless have any embassies. All of the lights would be turned out in the debate about the Senate. A debate about the Senate right now is not Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. really useful before we hear from the Supreme Court as to what we are allowed to do. We will not hear from the Supreme Court for some I am not sure the NDP has thought through how government time. really works. The NDP is not a party that favours zero government. If anything, the NDP is the party of big government, yet the effect of its proposal would be to eliminate government. Lastly, it has been erroneously stated that Liberals are for the ● (1935) status quo in the Senate. That is not at all true. I would like to [Translation] describe what our democratic critic, the former leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, thinks about For these reasons, I think this is not a good message. It is not a Senate reform. good idea to do something that would eliminate the federal government and many of the provincial governments. [English] First of all, we have to recognize that the distribution of Senate For those reasons alone, we are certainly not going to support this seats is highly unbalanced. Alberta and British Columbia have six crazy idea. seats each. New Brunswick has 10, so the original provinces, the There are other things that I would like to mention as well. I think Maritimes, and Quebec and Ontario hugely benefit in the distribution that this is disrespectful to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is of seats compared with Alberta and British Columbia. If we move to in the process of considering a long overdue reference by the federal an elected Senate, that means that the Senate would become more government. We have been recommending such a reference for a powerful. It might become as powerful as the House of Commons. If year or more and the government did it just recently, thereby wasting that were to happen, it would be hugely unfair to British Columbia a lot of time. Had it done it a year ago, the Supreme Court probably and Alberta, so I do not know what the Prime Minister is trying to do would have decided by now and we could proceed. It is highly with his proposed elected senators, without any return to the disrespectful of the Supreme Court. Constitution and without talking about the distribution of Senate seats. The Prime Minister comes from Alberta. He would be We have to obey our Constitution. The law says that the Senate disadvantaging his own province whose proportion in the Senate is and the House of Commons have to approve. It is not just a federal far less than its proportion of the population of Canada. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17753

Business of Supply My colleague said that the first thing one would have to do to Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. move toward an elected Senate would be to have a negotiation colleague confuses two things. We could have a good, wholesome involving the distribution of Senate seats to make it fairer and more debate about whether or not the Senate should be abolished, whether in line with today's population. If one could achieve that, then one it is worth the $90 million, whether Canadians get good value out of could move constitutionally toward an elected Senate. He also said it, whether it should be abolished or whether it should be reformed, we would have to have some division of interests, so that the Senate et cetera. and the House of Commons would be complementary in their activities rather than being a recipe for deadlock between the two. What we cannot do is simply cut off the funding and expect this We see in the United States and perhaps in Italy that the House of federal government to continue with business as usual. As I have Representatives and the Senate cannot agree and there is a deadlock. explained in two speeches in one day, the effect of doing that would We want to avoid that. be to cut all the civil servants out and to cut out all the operating expenditures of the government. There would be no lights on in this It is a complicated business. That is one approach that could be room or in the other chamber down the hall. Nothing would happen. taken, which my colleague thinks is a good idea and which I think All of the Senate staff would be fired. The government could not get might be a good idea, but we should not underestimate the difficulty things through the Senate. The only statutory expenditure, which the of that approach as we know from our own history. It is at least a member for Winnipeg Centre mentioned, for the Senate, is the principled approach to Senate reform, as opposed to this proposal salaries of senators. that we have today of starving it of funds, which is a recipe not only Is the NDP suggesting that the Senate should have nothing to do, for shutting down the Senate, but for shutting down the whole but the senators should continue to be paid? Is that their idea? Government of Canada and the governments of many provinces as well. ● (1945) ● (1940) Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday our leader did say, [Translation] after being questioned by that member's leader, that he left the Senate vacancies unfilled. In that period when he was trying to get those In closing, my main argument is that this approach by the NDP filled by elected people, the Liberal Party and other parties got does not make sense because the NDP is a party that favours together and tried to fill those Senate vacancies with their own government. It does not make sense to eliminate the government if people. you are in favour of government, but their proposal would do exactly that: eliminate the federal government and many of the provincial The member speaking tonight, talking about what he does know governments. about the Constitution and how important the Senate is, could probably validate how hypocritical the NDP members have been on This does not jibe with the Constitution or the Supreme Court. It is this issue, because they did want to fill the Senate. He would know. absolutely not the right approach. He was here at the time when his own leader was trying to cut a deal [English] with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to fill those vacancies with their own. At that time they certainly had no qualms about the What it does show is that the NDP is certainly not ready for Senate. In fact, they already had all their positions filled. government. I would think the most principled action by the more Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the NDP sensible members of Parliament for the NDP would be to vote members are probably very happy with what I have said today. I against their own crazy motion. would say in response that the Conservative record is not the greatest Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have either, because the Prime Minister went for many months without heard a lot of inflammatory language about our motion. I think we appointing a single senator because he wanted senators to be elected. are upsetting the status quo. That is sometimes why we are here, to He found he could not do that, and all of a sudden he appointed a upset the status quo. huge whack of senators, 18, including Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and so on. Members opposite have not thought through everything. There is no reason why we cannot stop funding the Senate, take the Senate He found that he could not function as a government without an staff, and we are not talking about the partisan staff, and put them effective Senate. If that silly NDP motion passed, we would find that with the rest of the public servants. Then any other bill that came out in spades. Both actions by the government and the proposed forward that had a constitutional nature because of the ramifications actions by the NDP say that under our existing Constitution, we do of not funding the Senate, could be dealt with at that time. need the Senate to function in a workable way. [Translation] What we are saying is that we should have a debate on whether or not it is actually appropriate at this time to fund the Senate at a cost Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. of $92.5 million when senators and the Senate itself are not even Speaker, I have listened to comments from both sides of the House. capable of ensuring the basic respect needed for taxpayers. Members will not be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion to stop funding the Senate. I would even I would hope that the hon. member, who actually sits on the same suggest that members of the House be able to sit in the Senate while committee as me, would be as worried about taxpayers' money and the House of Commons is being renovated. That would help us save the abuse of it as I am. money. 17754 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply The one thing we do know for sure is that the public needs to hear My question for the member is on what changes he thinks should the truth. When the NDP talks about abolishing the Senate, it is be made with respect to the Prime Minister's power on selecting careful not to mention that this would require opening up the senators. Constitution. The Conservatives and the Liberals are against abolishing the Senate, an archaic institution that serves no purpose Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and is undemocratic, because they appointed their friends to this neighbour and colleague. We are both members of the 2000 cohort. institution. They at least admit that we would have to open up the There are only four of us left now. I thank him for his very good Constitution. question.

I do not want to speak on behalf of the Government of Quebec, I think that is something we would have to give a lot of thought to. but I can say that if the federal government ever chooses the I do not have a direct answer. However, obviously— excellent solution of cutting funding to the Senate and then abolishing it, we will have all kinds of things to ask the federal Hon. Scott Brison: Just economists. government for and all kinds of things to patriate. Hon. John McCallum: Having just economists is one idea. Could my Liberal colleague explain why he thinks the NDP chooses not to mention that we would have to open up the However, it would appear that the Prime Minister has made some Constitution? bad choices recently. I will not name names, but some members Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the NDP, might guess some of those names. but I can say that I am not surprised that the Bloc Québécois will support this motion. I think there could be a case made for some sort of blue ribbon committee or advisory committee that would advise the Prime The Bloc thinks that the only provincial government that will not Minister and give recommendations or summaries of what it thought be affected by the motion is Quebec's. The federal agency does not of the qualifications of certain people. Constitutionally, I think the collect Quebec's taxes, but it does for all the other provinces. It Prime Minister has to have the last word, so he would not have to would be the end of the federal government and the end of the necessarily accept that advice. However, I think there could be a case provincial governments, except for Quebec's. It may sound like a made for that. good idea to the Bloc Québécois, but it certainly is not a good idea for Quebeckers and Canadians. I also think we cannot determine this with any finality before we ● (1950) hear the position of the Supreme Court. [English] Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Speaker, I am very happy to have the chance to speak tonight. As member voted in favour of Bill C-290, the sports betting bill, which you may remember, I enjoy speaking about the Senate, and I am glad has been languishing in the Senate for more than one and a half to have this opportunity to share more of my thoughts tonight. years. Why has the bill not been passed by the Senate when the House of I am going to discuss a number of things on the motion that has Commons passed it unanimously with no dissent, no objections, and been brought forward by the NDP. The first issue I want to cover is no one speaking from the opposition? Why has the bill not been something I have heard a lot about in the House today and it is passed? whether this is truly the best use of our time. When we talk to people in St. Thomas or Aylmer, or other places around the riding in Hon. John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to southern Ontario, they do not think it is. They ask me why we spend that. I think the Senate these days is controlled by the Conservatives. hours debating motions like this rather than budgets and things that However, one possible answer is that we in the House of will help create and maintain jobs. They think we should be using Commons proceeded too rapidly, or perhaps incorrectly, and the our time more effectively, working for them. I agree. My constituents Senate is carrying out its traditional role as the chamber of sober are very wise and very good at selecting members. I am very second thought. Or, there perhaps is a more nefarious reason. thankful for the wise people in the riding who keep sending me back here to do their work. However, I do not know the answer to that question. Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the We should be here talking about jobs and the economy. I certainly member talked about a gridlock that would happen here with people have that conversation a lot in the riding. My constituents ask me getting paid. Anybody who has seen what has happened in the what are we doing in Ottawa to help create jobs and prosperity. They United States over the last winter could see what might happen if we do not ask me about the Senate much because it does not affect their had that gridlock. lives. If a discussion of the Senate ever comes up, it is probably because I bring it up. I might do that because the Senate sometimes We would have hoped that there would have been some sort of affects my work as the chair of the procedure and house affairs motion coming from the NDP or the PMO on how it deals with committee, which is where we talk about the Senate. That is usually picking senators, and then perhaps we could have had a better debate the only reason it ever comes up back home. The real questions are here. about jobs and the economy. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17755

Business of Supply Our government and our Prime Minister have proven that we can Speaking of a lack of a plan, we will come back to the NDP and multi-task, that we can do a number of things at once. Here we are the Senate. Since this motion on estimates does deal with the Senate, sharing in that multi-tasking, covering off a topic that does not seem I will relent and spend some time talking about it. It is only polite. to be of much use to us today. What matters to Canadians and the We are here at 8 o'clock at night, after all. Canadians in my riding are the economy, creating jobs and maintaining jobs, and building a growing prosperity for the people However, when we get to Senate reform, we cannot talk about the we represent. NDP because it has no plan. Luckily, our government does have a plan. We have been clear for many years that we favour reform first. Since we are debating a motion on the main estimates, the We are willing to consider a number of options, but we want to work fundamental appropriations for our government, we have an at reforming the Senate first and foremost. obligation to talk about financial matters and how they relate to the performance of our government and the economy in general. I For many years, our party and our government has supported the say this in order to contrast our economic plan, something that is of idea of term limits for Senators. The Prime Minister himself even paramount importance, and the NDP gimmick today, which my appeared at a special Senate committee to speak about the bill on constituents do not think should be high on our priority list. Senate reform, something that has never happened before. We have Let us talk about what matters back home. We have the lowest tax also been consistent in our support of provinces, undertaking rate in new business investment in the G7. That is something we set democratic processes to suggest nominees for appointment to the out to do and we have accomplished that. That helps create and Senate. One province has made these recommendations, and this sustain jobs back home in the riding. We are saving the average Prime Minister has appointed those people who were recommended family of four more than $3,100 a year in taxes. That includes by the Province of Alberta. That is something we can be proud of. I reducing the GST twice, and many other tax reductions. That helps hope that other provinces will follow Alberta's lead and let their families back home in the riding. people make the recommendations, after a democratic process. We have also provided tax relief in other ways, such as, the That has been our plan. We have been clear and we have been registered disability savings plan, the working income tax benefit, consistent. The Prime Minister has been equally as clear that we pension income splitting for seniors, and tax-free savings accounts, support the reform of the Senate, but that if it cannot be reformed, it which eight million Canadians already have. All of these things help should be abolished. However, our side of the House has the proper families in my riding. These things matter to them. respect for our Constitution, our institutions, regardless of their failings or the failings of their members, and respect for our We have signed free trade agreements with nine countries since provincial partners. 2006, and negotiations are ongoing with 60 other countries, including the European Union and Asia-Pacific countries. Other Our government recognizes that abolishing the Senate would be areas that are important for jobs and growth are innovation, research tough work. It would require co-operation across the country. With and development, and capital formation, which are fundamental to our Constitution, as venerable as it is, it is not entirely clear how stimulating business investment, including new high-quality jobs. Canadians might go about abolishing the Senate. Therefore, our They equip our country for success in the future. We have taken government has done the reasonable thing, something that I think my numerous actions on this file, and the positive results are there to see. constituents would endorse. Our government has asked the Supreme On infrastructure, post-secondary education and jobs training, we Court for its opinion on how we might go about abolishing the have taken positive steps to help Canadians and our economy. Just Senate. last week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This represents the strongest Let us talk about what has been referred to the Supreme Court. quarterly growth in nearly two years. Additionally, Statistics Canada The first thing we have asked the Supreme Court about is simple; we positively revised its economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2012, have asked about term limits. What term would be appropriate for up from 0.6% to 0.9%. This is the seventh straight quarter of positive senators, if indeed they had term limits? Can Parliament alone limit growth, and that is another sign that Canada's economy and our the terms of senators? How much could we limit them? Is there a government remain on the right track. point at which Parliament could act alone? We have suggested nine years in one piece of legislation, but we have asked the Supreme ● (1955) Court to give us an opinion on a number of different terms. Those Those are good results. They are good indicators that our focus on are reasonable questions and I hope the court will provide some jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity is bearing fruit for clarity, something that I recall the NDP opposes. Canadians. I might be mixing up my issues, though. I know that in the past We have seen over 900,000 net new jobs created in Canada since the retirement date was changed, from appointment for life down to the depths of the global recession. Over 90% of them are full-time age 75. In that respect, we are more likely to get some clarity, which and nearly 75% of them are in the private sector. It represents the I support. I believe that in the last study I read at committee, the best job growth record in the entire G7. Constituents back home average length of time served by a senator in the House was between appreciate that kind of good economic news. It shows them that we nine and ten years. This is how we got the number for a nine-year have a good plan for the economy, and it contrasts with the lack of term. It is the average that a senator currently sits, so we are on the plan on the part of our opposition parties. right track. 17756 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply ● (2000) That is what New Democrats really care about when it comes to taking the Senate out of this place. They just want to hear themselves The next thing is about the democratic selection of the Senate and talk. They have spoken at length on our most recent Senate reform nominees to the Senate. bill. They put up about 40 speakers on that bill, and they all said the same things over and over again. Our government has proposed a few different ways to hold democratic processes to recommend Senate nominees, so we have As the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House put those questions to the Supreme Court. We have asked whether Affairs, which has seen its own fair share of filibustering on Senate we can ask provinces to determine themselves who they would like reform, I can tell the House that this is filibustering. I know it when I their senators to be. If that happens, they would then be appointed to see it. New Democrats are not debating anything; they are just the Senate by the Prime Minister, as we have already shown in the hijacking the House to ensure that Senate reform cannot move case of Alberta. forward. They are clogging the zone, as we say in hockey. As I have mentioned, Alberta has already chosen to do this. There Back when I could, I was a stay-at-home defenceman when I are senators now who have been elected by the people of Alberta to played hockey. I see the member for Cape Breton—Canso— represent the province of Alberta in the Senate, and they have been appointed by the Prime Minister. That process is in our latest bill, so Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Now you just stay at home. we are asking the Supreme Court about that. We have also asked Mr. Joe Preston: Many of the fans yelled the same thing, sir. about a national process that we proposed previously. People may not be able to tell by my appearance, but in hockey I We have also asked the Supreme Court for a couple of opinions. seldom got past centre ice. My coach thought I was a far better One of them has to do with the net worth of senators. defenceman than I was a goal scorer. Therefore, I know when The requirements in the Constitution on this question are from players are delaying the game. I know what it looks like when another age. The Fathers of Confederation in Canada drew up a players are not rushing the puck. I would suggest that the party Constitution in 1867. That was a long time ago. That document has opposite has gone even further than just not rushing the puck. lasted this long, but there are many questions about it. ● (2005) Very late last Wednesday night there was talk about a time in the We have debated Senate reform legislation for over 18 hours in 1800s, around the time the Constitution was written. A story was this House, and the NDP just keeps talking and talking. We could be told about an elephant in St. Thomas getting hit by a train. I have had spending that time examining the bill in committee or talking about some requests to bring it back, so there it is. I have talked about the other important things in the House, such as the economy and jobs. elephant in the 1800s in St. Thomas again. It is a filibuster, despite their protests. We broke that logjam by We should consider visiting these rules from another age, from a referring the bill's subject matter, along with other important long time ago. My constituents would agree with doing that. questions, to the Supreme Court of Canada. We await their opinion. I know I am interested to hear what they have to say. The last set of questions has to do with what we are talking about today: the abolition of the Senate. As I mentioned before, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Senate must be reformed or be abolished. We will await the We are asking the opinion of the Supreme Court on this very opinion of the Supreme Court. We will examine that opinion when it topic, and our approach reflects well on the government. It shows arrives, and we will take action based on it, as we have promised to just how out of its depth the opposition is on this question. We have do. We will pursue reform, and if that cannot be accomplished, we put a number of specific questions to the Supreme Court because the will pursue abolition. Constitution is specific. The aim in seeking the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada Amending our Constitution is a weighty matter, so we need take was to accelerate the pace of Senate reform and to lay the foundation care to ensure that we get the answers we need, but care is not for further reform to the Senate. That is exactly what it will do. We something I detect in today's motion from the NDP. The party will receive clarity on the steps that we must take to move forward, opposite knows the Supreme Court has been asked for its opinions and then we will move forward. on these topics, yet what is its motion today? Let us spend a whole In the meantime, we will continue to bring forward measures to day talking about a backdoor way to vandalize our institutions, strengthen the accountability of senators to taxpayers. We will do bypass our Constitution and use a gimmick to maybe get a few what can be done. media hits. Last week the Senate adopted 11 tough new accountability rules That frustrates our constituents. We could respect the Supreme governing travel and expenses that were put forward by Con- Court of Canada and Canadians, but instead of spending our time servative senators. I think Canadians would think the rules are talking about important matters like jobs and the economy, we are reasonable. talking about a topic that New Democrats believe will add some political oomph. It is just a gimmick to allow them to crow about They removed the principle from the senate administrative rules their complete lack of a plan, which I find strange and wasteful of that stated that a senator is presumed to act honourably with respect our time and energy. to expenses. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17757

Business of Supply They clarify and make consistent the terminology surrounding Again, this is a strong measure that will protect taxpayers. We have residency for the purposes of expense claims. demonstrated that we have a plan and that we will take action when abuses come to light. They require a senator to provide a specific purpose for travel when claiming expenses. They require senators to maintain mileage That contrasts us with the opposition parties, because they have no logs for the purpose of claiming mileage. plan. They did not have a plan in the past and they still do not have They require that taxi receipts be provided when claiming taxi one today. They want to take the easy way out: hold a press expenses, and they restrict per diems in Ottawa to days the Senate conference here, make a speech there and move motions to sits, days the senators attend committee meetings and up to 20 circumvent our Constitution and our institutions in their free time, additional days while on approved Senate business. instead of talking about things that are important to Canadians, such as the economy. They do not have a plan. They amend the 64-point travel system to limit senators to 12 trips that are not between Ottawa and the senator's provincial residence, We have a plan. We support reasonable reforms and we will move restrict a senator's designated traveller to a spouse or partner and toward abolition. It is very simple, but our plan's simplicity respects require administration to provide internal economy with monthly our institutions and our Constitution. reports on travel patterns. ● (2010) However, we are optimistic on this side of the House that the Senate can and should be reformed. We think Canadians agree that Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is the Senate should be reformed and that politicians can come together recording commentary into his iPhone or BlackBerry, and it is very and agree on that. If it is not possible and the Senate cannot be distracting in the House of Commons. I do not think we are reformed because senators will not co-operate or because politicians supposed to be using those devices to record audible messages. cannot work together to solve a national problem, then it needs to go. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I thank the hon. member for Windsor West for his intervention. I know this issue has It would need to go because the status quo is unacceptable. I think come up in the House before. I will have to go back and see if there that is something we can all agree with. are particular rulings that one should abide by. ● (2015) Of course all members are aware that the use of telephones and other devices in the House is typically not allowed. If members have [Translation] to use those devices, they are certainly welcome to do it out in the Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, lobby. NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, We will have a look at that and get back to the House should it be who spoke a bit earlier, and this member talked about strengthening necessary. the responsibilities of the Senate, which is not very effective. Why have they done nothing about this since 2006, when they came to The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has the floor. power? Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Windsor West for giving me a bit of break during that extremely The Conservatives said in 2004 that they would not appoint thrilling and exciting speech. I can see why he would want to pop up anyone else to the Senate. Why then has the Prime Minister made 57 and break the momentum there. Again, to use a hockey analogy, he Senate appointments since 2006, and mostly patronage or partisan is trying to get the momentum to go the other way. appointments at that? I know it was just members recording what a great speech they [English] were hearing in the House so they could ensure that their Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, we did constituents back home would have a record of it too. talk a lot about reform for a number of years here. As the chair of the I was reading the rules and I think all these rules make pretty good procedure and House affairs committee, I can say that we have sense. These strong new measure will improve accountability and certainly talked about democratic reform and reform of the Senate. prevent abuse. We said we would fix the Senate rules governing We talked about it over and over, and then we have talked about it in travel expenses; we have delivered. At least we have made some here for a bit, and then we talked about it back there for a bit. progress to make things better. I find it a bit over the top that the member talked about how much It is unfortunate the rules were broken so badly that we needed to we have tried to move toward reform. When we found that the tighten them. It is unfortunate that some people decided not to follow delaying tactics were the way they were, we made a reference to the the rules. That is what happened, and we are dealing with it to make Supreme Court to try to have those answers clarified. When the sure it does not happen again. answers come back from the Supreme Court, we will see how fast we can work on the reform of the Senate. We are dealing with taxpayers' money. That is the most important thing to remember. To go further to ensure that taxpayers' money is Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, being cared for properly, this week the Leader of the Government in I thank my good friend from London, home of the London Knights. the Senate introduced a motion asking the Auditor General of It is a good team that of course lost to the Halifax Mooseheads in the Canada to conduct a comprehensive audit of Senate expenses. Memorial Cup this year. 17758 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply I have been here 13 years and I have heard a lot of speeches in this the Supreme Court. We have referred the matter of the democratic House. That was certainly one of them. I have been able to join in on process to be used to select senators to the Supreme Court. We have a great number of debates on a lot of topics, but I have never seen a also, in that same reference to the Supreme Court, referred the matter motion brought forward before that lit up the political universe. of abolition of the Senate and how might it be done.

On Twitter I am following all the journalists and people who like As I said in one of my speeches quite a few years ago, 140 years to weigh in with a political opinion. They are commenting on just ago the country was founded and a Constitution was written. It is how flaky this particular motion is. “Flaky” should not be offensive very tough for us to crack that open and make these changes. to anyone, but I would like my friend to comment on that. Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to all the Let us ask the court of this land, before anybody else puts forward flakes out there, I guess. However, I tend to agree with one of my a law suit, ahead of time about how we do these things. That is the favourite members. most important thing, which has been done by the Prime Minister and this government. We are awaiting the answer. When we get the First, I would like to handle the question on my London Knights, answer, we will go right to work. who won the Memorial Cup two years in a row and will be hosting it next year, which will be three years in a row. Find me another Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would Canadian team that has done this three years in a row, or at least has like to ask my colleague a question regarding Bill C-290, which is a been to the Memorial Cup. Halifax should bring its team to London bill he supported and voted for in the House of Commons. next year. The Conservatives supported Bill C-290, but it has been stalled in This may give me an answer to the second part of the member's the Senate for more than a year and a half. The democratic will of the question. House of Commons passed this bill with no dissension. No It is great to be to stand and talk about one's hometown hockey Conservative spoke or voted against the bill. However, it was team, or elephants that have been hit by trains in one's hometown, or moved to the Senate and it has not gone forward in a year plus. a number of things like that, but the real answer here is that we are wasting the time of this place. We should be here talking about the The bill was in regard to the nefarious operations of organized jobs, growth and prosperity of the economy and the taxes that we crime overseas and would have ensured that we had legalized single- have already cut. However, to use the member's word, we are talking sport betting under the rule of government. about the “flaky” issues that are out there. I am afraid the people at home are tuned into the hockey game and not into the CPAC channel Where does the member stand on that with regard to the Senate to watch us speak of this. that has not passed this bill in one and a half years? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Just a reminder to all Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, it is quite unique. The member has hon. members that through the course of this debate on today's asked this question of a couple of speakers tonight on where this bill motion there have been a lot of interesting questions and comments, is in the Senate and how the Senate working on it. but I would ask all hon. members, as well as those responding, to keep their interventions no more than one minute. I am sorry, I have not followed the bill religiously through the Senate. As a member of Parliament, we barely had a chance to Questions and comments, the hon. for Kildonan—St. Paul. follow it here. It was passed unanimously when most of the members Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my were not here one day. colleague's speech was very insightful and beneficial. I appreciated it very much. Therefore, to use the trick to talk about the changing the Senate and then to use the trick to talk about a bill to try to make his point, As we all know, there are so many wonderful senators in the sounds like those members are pretty consistent on that side. Senate who work very hard and do pay very close attention to what they are doing. Unfortunately, we now have to take a second look [Translation] because there are some real issues that need to be addressed at the Senate for accountability. Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hockey fan colleagues that the I would like my colleague to comment on what he feels is the Halifax Mooseheads play in the Quebec major junior hockey league. most important focus that we need to have on the Senate to reform it We are very proud of winning the Memorial Cup for the third and improve it as quickly as possible. straight year. ● (2020) Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to tell now, but I have a more serious question for the member, who, much like his we used to be seatmates. As members can see what happens in this Conservative colleagues in this debate tonight, is sitting on the fence. place, one can switch from one end to the other, and I see her very The Conservatives are trying to have it both ways. Maybe because rarely now. She is way down at the other end. things are not going too well in the Senate, suddenly there is the possibility of abolishing the Senate, although the Conservatives' To answer her question, the most important thing has already been rhetoric since they came to power in 2006 has centred on Senate done. We have referred the matter of the reform of the Senate to the reform. Even the Minister of State for Democratic Reform focused Supreme Court. We have referred the matter of Senate term limits to on this quite a bit this evening. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17759

Business of Supply Are the Conservatives suddenly talking about the possibility of taxpayers are paying for it? We just want to pause and reflect, and abolishing the Senate because of all the underhanded shenanigans see if the money is being well spent over there. As Canadians have going on there? Are they opposing the abolition of the Senate to seen over the past couple of weeks, I think they would agree with protect the friends they appointed to the Senate to help the most of the members of the NDP that it is not being spent well, that Conservative Party? It is either one or the other. taxpayer funds are being misused. [English] That election in 1984 started off with Brian Mulroney riding into Mr. Joe Preston: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain where the member Ottawa on a white horse to clean up Ottawa, to get rid of the has been. I hold in my hand a fact sheet about the reference to the patronage appointments and it ended in 1993 with two members of Supreme Court of Canada, which mentions all of the things that I the Progressive Conservatives remaining in the House, with division mentioned in my speech, including all the parts that he just asked in in the country. The same thing is going to happen in 2015. After nine his question. years of power, the current government is going to end up a small rump, if anything, in the House, with a New Democratic government Yes, we have talked about reforming the Senate. We have moved in power. forward to ask, as Alberta has done, that provinces select their senators and other provinces have even expressed some interest in The Senate is an institution full of scandal and lies and it is a stain that. We have talked about the term limits for senators, and that was on Canadian democracy. I am proud to say that I am a New a piece of the reform package that we talked about. Democrat and I am proud to say that I am part of a party that does However, in the reference to the Supreme Court, we also asked it now and has always called for even when— tell us if some of these other things were not possible, if we could not The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member move forward to improving the Senate in Canada. We asked the may know that his reference to the word “lies” in particular, since it Supreme Court to give us some rules and some answers on how suggests intent, is not a word that is customarily used in the House, abolition might take place. It has been a number of months now or the other place for that matter. It has always been considered in the since that has taken place. category of unparliamentary language. Therefore, I would seek the ● (2025) hon. member's suggestion that he may wish to rephrase that Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speak- particular segment of his remarks. er, all across our great country, Canadians are struggling and going The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges. through financial hardships. Living pay cheque to pay cheque and relying on credit cards to make ends meet has become the reality for Mr. Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I should have referred to the thousands of Canadians under the current government. other place as sometimes misleading and sometimes deviating from proper oversight. I would also like to say that I am splitting my time with the amazing member for Trinity—Spadina. Our party has always called for abolition of the Senate, even when we were the CCF and the ILA even before that. We have been Yet here we are debating whether the Conservative government calling for the abolition of this unelected and accountable body should give $58 million of taxpayer money to the unelected, known as the Senate. unaccountable and undemocratic Senate. This does not represent the best interests of Canadians, which we are here to do. Just last week in my riding I was talking to a Ms. Martin, a single The Fathers of Confederation envisioned the Senate to be an mother who lives in my riding who is working two jobs and still academic, non-partisan body of sober second thought. Instead, it has struggling to make ends meet. Her difficulties are hard but sadly not been turned into a tool of patronage for Liberals and Conservatives unique to Canadians. From coast to coast to coast, Canadians are alike. struggling in this economic climate. What is the government doing to help Canadians? What is it doing to help lower unemployment I would like to share with the House that my political awakening rates? What is the government doing to help Ms. Martin spend less as a teenager, when I was 13, was the 1984 federal election. For time worrying about how she will pay her bills and spend more time those members of the House who remember that, it was Brian at home with her children? Mulroney versus John Turner. It was Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservatives, which no longer exist, they are now, I Instead of fixing these problems, the Prime Minister and the would say, the regressive Conservatives. In the televised debate of Conservative government are writing a cheque for $58 million to the that federal election, Brian Mulroney, who was a Conservative, unelected, unaccountable senators who work just 71 days a year on lambasted John Turner for doing a raft of patronage appointments average. It does not make sense. It is not giving enough for hard- that were asked of him by the former Prime Minister Trudeau. working Canadians to collect EI when they need it. However, it does Conservatives at that time said that the Liberals had the option of not have enough to give to the Senate to give senators a nice salary and doing it. pension. However, in the past 30 years we have seen that Conservatives The Conservative government, like its Liberal predecessors, and Liberals alike have used the Senate as their patronage dumping would rather protect its party bagmen, party hacks and failed ground, at the expense of the taxpayer. All we are asking tonight is to candidates in the Senate than protect the thousands of Canadians take pause and reflect. Does that chamber deserve the money that the who are struggling every day. 17760 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply At its purest form, the Senate is a place for senators to come benefiting from this institution. They include David Smith, together and represent and fight for their constituents. As we can see, James Cowan, Fernand Robichaud and Grant Mitchell, who are all this noble cause is lost in the upper chamber. Could this be because friends of the party. All of them have used Canadians' money, public they are not elected and held accountable by their constituents? funds, to quietly campaign, when they are supposed to be working to Could this be because they are not appointed based on their ensure that taxpayers' money is spent more wisely. community work, but rather because of their backroom partisan work? When it comes to using taxpayers' money more wisely, 23 mayors in my riding are paid very little for all the hard work they do. I am Enough is enough. The Canadian people need to be the first talking about Géraldine Quesnel, Marc Roy, Marie-Claude Nichols, priority of the government and it has to stop funnelling money to the Guy Pilon, Robert Grimaudo, Yvan Cardinal, Michael Elliott, unaccountable, unelected Senate. Manon Trudel, Robert Sauvé, Maryse Sauvé, Marc-André Léger, Réal Boisvert, Jean-Pierre Daoust, Réal Brazeau, Patrick Bousez, In a recent Ipsos poll it was found that 43% of Canadians agreed Nicole Loiselle, Jean-Yves Poirier, Yvon Bériault, Gaëtane Legault, with the NDP that the Senate should be abolished, 45% of Canadians Patricia Domingos, Aline Guillotte, Jean Lalonde and Claude Pilon. believed that at the very least the Senate needed to be reformed and a small 13% of Canadians, including the Liberal leader, agreed with Personally, I would rather see these millions of dollars given to the Liberal leader's and Conservatives' record, that the status quo elected officials who do their job properly and work tirelessly to worked and nothing needed to be changed. represent my region than to senators who do nothing. Nevertheless, it is not just Canadians and the NDP who want the ● (2035) Senate abolished. The premiers of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan all believe that the Senate is an archaic, [English] wasteful, undemocratic institution that has no place in Canada's Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. government. Every province in Canada has done away with their Speaker, a number of times during the debate about the vote 1 for upper chamber and have all thrived after doing so. Senate funding, the issue of Bill C-290 has been raised. I want to put on the record that the Senate should review this bill, and in my view Canadians want and deserve better from their government. It is should defeat this bill. time to end the gravy train, stop the funding and start using taxpayer dollars to make their lives better and more affordable. That bill, when it was in front of this House of Commons, did not ● (2030) receive a standing vote at second reading. In fact, what transpired on [Translation] Friday, March 2, 2012, was that the House leaders worked together to force debate to collapse before the full two hours of third reading It is not just Canadians who know that something is not right in had transpired, preventing members like me from “standing five” to the Senate. During the 2005 election campaign, the Prime Minister request a full standing division on that piece of legislation. promised to reform the Senate so that it would be equal, elected and effective. If he had to do it all over, he would probably add “ethical” That bill did not receive sufficient scrutiny in this House of to his list. He forgot the fourth e. Commons. It went through one hour of hearing at committee with the Canadian gaming commission. That is the reason for which we During their seven years in power, the Conservatives have have a Senate. It is the chamber of sober second thought that ensures introduced various bills that have never amounted to anything or the decisions made by this House are double-checked by the upper been high on the list of priorities. Even worse, although the Prime chamber. Minister himself had promised that he would not appoint senators, he has appointed 59 since coming to power. This is a new record in Mr. Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I respect this member very Canada's history. much, but if he wants to talk about not having the opportunity to stand up in this House and do his part, he should talk to his House Not only did they break their promise, but the Prime Minister and leader for invoking closure in debate 40 times in this House. It is a the Conservatives perpetuated the Liberal tradition of using the total affront to our democracy. Senate to reward the party faithful. If the hon. member wants to talk about not being able to stand in There is the appointment of failed candidates such as Josée Verner his place and represent his constituents, I would tell him to talk to his and Larry Smith and the appointment of Conservative cronies such House leader so that this place can function properly. as Irving Gerstein, Judith Seidman, Donald Plett and David Braley. Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Before he was appointed to the Senate, David Braley donated a total Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member. He mentioned of $86,000 to the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister. 1984 and what happened to the Progressive Conservatives. I am The NDP has always spoken out about these practices. We were wondering if he has any comments about what happened between against this archaic, undemocratic institution at the time of the 1984 and 1988-89. When the prime minister needed to push more Liberals, who behaved the same way the Conservatives are behaving senators, he automatically brought in a whole slew of them and they now. were placed in the House. It is not surprising that the leader of the Liberal Party is against If the roles were reversed and they had to pass legislation, would it abolishing the Senate. Just think of all the Liberal senators who are not have been the same? June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17761

Business of Supply Mr. Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, this is the problem, and we are some senators who are outstanding citizens and who have have seen this since the beginning of Confederation. The party in contributed a great deal to our country in their careers. There is also power uses the Senate to stack people with patronage appointments no question that there are many individual senators who work hard in in that place. the red chamber and who seek to serve the country well. They have done nothing wrong. It does not actually function as a chamber of sober second thought. It functions as a parking place for party bagmen, partisan However, even if all the senators were in that league and none of campaigners and the like. We saw that after the 1984 election when their colleagues were a Conservative or a Liberal crony, helping Brian Mulroney took power. He used the Senate in exactly the way themselves to public funds while doing the bidding of their patrons is for which he has denounced the previous Trudeau administration. unacceptable. Even if they are all working hard, we should still fight We see that with the current Prime Minister using it in the same way to stop funding the Senate and force reform. that the Chrétien administration used it. This has to come to an end. We have to get rid of the other place. This motion is not about those cronies who are abusing their This is a good first step, talking and having a debate about whether appointed positions. It is about the institution that has become we should be giving these millions of dollars to it. degraded and corrupted by its political masters. The prime ministers, Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank whether they were Liberal or Conservative, have loaded it up with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who decided not to speak cronies for their own ends. Through patronage appointments and on Bill C-290 and did not want to vote on it. The bill was actually supporting the Senate, they have undermined democracy. The only passed on a voice vote in the House of Commons because there were way we can stop this degradation and abuse of public funds and trust not five Conservatives who wanted to stand in this place to force a is to cut off the funds. vote. The vote never took place because five Conservatives did not want to be here. I would like to ask my hon. colleague about that. As hon. members on the Conservative benches and the Liberal benches have pointed out, abolishing the Senate will require The bill was unanimously sent from the House to the Senate, and constitutional change. However, cleaning up the act in the meantime now it languishes there. The bill would fight against organized crime can be done. That is what this motion is about. and offshore betting establishments, and would provide a revenue stream and jobs for provinces. It would help places like Windsor, Cutting the funding is something we can do in this House to stop Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Nova Scotia. the abuse and force reform. We, the democratically elected members Why should he support the Senate when a bill from the of this House, have an opportunity to force the issue by stopping democratically elected people, who actually chose this bill— funding. We have an opportunity to force the issue so that this House can debate, and the country can contemplate, democratic institutions. ● (2040) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The We have an opportunity. More than that, all those here who member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. believe in democracy have a responsibility to uphold democratic [Translation] principles and principles of good governance. This is about Mr. Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the money being democracy. This is about transparency. This is about accountability. spent there is not working. It could be put to better use. This is about good governance.

As I have already said, there are 21 municipalities represented by All members of this House must agree that the Senate is not democratically elected men and women in my riding. Those people democratic. It has not been transparent. It is clearly not accountable. work hard in the interests of their constituents. They live in their city, That is not the fault of individual senators. The problem is the not elsewhere, and they work for a laughable salary. Many of them institution itself, which has become nothing but a creature of the have to get a second job to make ends meet. government in power. When it comes to funding the Senate, I think that we could be paying far less than what we are now, for the same work. The current Prime Minister spent his earlier career in politics railing against this institution of patronage. He spent his career [English] crying out for reform and for a triple-E Senate: equal, effective, Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this elected. Remember that, Mr. Speaker? He campaigned on that when debate tonight is not about a few bad apples in a barrel; it is about the leading the Reform Party. fact that the entire barrel is a pork barrel. The entire barrel is rotten, and it needs to be fixed. Now is the chance. Where is the Prime Minister on this? The The people of Canada have lost confidence in the Senate, which is current Prime Minister cried out when former prime ministers neither democratic nor accountable. The people of Canada are Mulroney and Chrétien and Martin loaded the Senate with patronage looking to this House to show leadership. appointments. He cried out for reform. He cried out and campaigned for reform for years, until he finally got in the position to do This motion seeks to force reform and to get the barrel fixed, something about it. What did he do? He started larding the pork which is much more important than just going after a few bad apples. barrel with patronage appointments, blatantly and cynically, so that Of course, they are not all bad apples. There is no question that there he could overwhelm the Liberal majority in the Senate. 17762 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply ● (2045) every democratically elected member of Parliament to stop the abuse, force reform, fix the barrel and stop feeding pork into it. As a result, excellent legislation for sending affordable drugs to Empty it, get rid of the rot, and vote for this NDP motion to stop African kids was killed. A bill dealing with climate change was funding the Senate. waived out of hand. ● (2050) While he was larding it up, he claimed, in the most cynical way, Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, CPC): Mr. that he was making appointments to facilitate Senate reform; this Speaker, the member for Trinity—Spadina talked a lot about while he was bloating the institution with more senators than ever, democracy in her speech. Actually, a lot of it was just lip service to all getting public funds, which was a clear abuse of public funds. democracy, if one thinks about it. She is talking about basically abolishing the Senate through a backdoor mechanism, i.e., cutting Rather than reforming the senate, he has undermined democracy. off the funding, which is really not constitutional. He did not appoint just cronies and media personalities and celebrities. He appointed failed Conservative candidates, failed If she really had some respect for democracy and our Constitution, candidates for this House. He appointed candidates for Parliament she would actually be more up front and support a true motion, yet who had been defeated in their own ridings. They had been rejected the NDP has never put a motion forward. It has talked about it. It has by voters. They could not get elected. The current Prime Minister, never supported any form of democratic reform of the Senate. the long-time spokesperson for democratic reform, whose former party was called Reform, made these cynical and undemocratic She should admit, while she is at it, that it is only this Prime patronage appointments. Minister who has ever nominated democratically elected senators. He is the only prime minister in Canadian history to do so. In one of those cynical, undemocratic—in fact, anti-democratic— appointments, he appointed a defeated candidate to cabinet. It was I would like to hear her comments on why she thinks it is someone who had been rejected by the electorate, someone who democratic and constitutional to cut off funding for an institution of could not get elected. That undemocratically appointed senator Parliament that is established in the Constitution. Why does she became a cabinet minister. That was not democratic. That was a slap think it is all right for her party to move that kind of motion forward. in the face of democracy. In fact, it was a slap in the face of this Ms. Olivia Chow: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friend was not here House. when the former leader of the New Democrats and I moved a motion to ban partisan fundraising by senators of all parties and to institute a With that appointment, the Prime Minister was not just further cooling-off period for appointments of party insiders and failed degrading the Senate; he was further degrading this House of candidates. In fact, I am reading from that motion, which the Commons and he was further degrading democracy. member did not realize had been debated in the House. We voted on Who has been served by these patronage appointments? It is it. clearly not the people of Canada, who have no say in the matter. The While New Democrats were making reasonable proposals, what Conservative Party has been served and the Prime Minister has been did the Conservatives do? Conservatives only made Senate reform served. suggestions that would never pass. They have been spending time The two senators now under scrutiny for abuse of public funds doing nothing all these years, because their goal, ultimately, is to and public trust worked very hard to get their appointments, not for play political games rather than bring greater accountability to the the people of Canada but for the Conservative Party. Senate. They claimed to want an elected Senate, then appointed senators in record numbers. They said they wanted to clean up the What we have here is an institution that is an extension of the Senate, then refused to beef up the Senate ethics code. They said that Conservative and Liberal parties' election machines. That cannot be taxpayers should not subsidize political parties, then had taxpayer- fair. That cannot be just. funded senators working on fundraising for the party. Why was the $92 million spent on the Senate not shown in the I could go on, but we certainly have debated that motion, and we election spending reports? We know for sure that they were have had many proposals in the House in the past. fundraising. They were campaigning. Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not in the last election, but in the previous one, two I have no doubt that if the Prime Minister were still in opposition members of Parliament were invited to be honoured at a Burmese and the bad apples of the day were all Liberals, he would be crying temple. One of the members arrived in a limo. The limo number was out for reform. He would have been leading the charge with this livery number six. I even know the guy who drove the member there. motion. He would have been looking to stop this waste. The husband of the member said that his wife had to have RCMP Instead, the Prime Minister has been making the pork barrel even support. worse. He has even put more pork into the barrel. He has not been Would the member now like to come clean and talk about pork- accountable. He abandoned his principled pursuit of a triple-E barrelling in all the other parties and admit that she was using a Senate as soon as he had the chance to mould that Senate to his own livery that day when she went to be awarded in a Burmese temple? ends. Come clean now. He has forgotten that we were elected to serve the public trust, not The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I am not sure that to abuse it. He has undermined democracy. It is the responsibility of question is relevant to the question before the House. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17763

Business of Supply Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor West. I want to highlight the four reasons I believe we should fund the Senate and why I believe the Senate should exist. ● (2055) Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would The Senate serves as a counterweight, a check and balance, to the like to ask a question with regard to Bill C-290, the single sports majoritarianism of this place. This place is representative of the betting bill, which was passed in the House of Commons, without Canadian population. In fact, we are increasing the number of objection and without speeches against it, to the Senate. It has been ridings in Canada, because Canada's population is growing. This languishing there for a year. place reflects majority rule, and that is why we have elections, where members of Parliament represent their constituents. This place has a In Toronto, during this past Super Bowl, there was a bust of illegal tendency toward majoritarianism. That is why we need an upper game betting of $2 million. What does the hon. member think about chamber. The upper chamber serves as a counterweight and this bill, because it works against organized crime and it works counterbalance to the majoritarianism of this place. against some of the offshore betting that is taking place? It makes sure that those funds go back to the public institutions we support. Let us take a look at whether the Senate is truly an archaic place The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Again, I appreciate that is not reflective of the Canadian population. In fact, if we look at the hon. member's attempts to try to connect that issue to the the statistics, the Senate is more reflective of the new Canada than is question before the House. It is a bill that is before the other place. I the House of Commons. According to recent Statistics Canada see that the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina was on her feet. If she census data, 20% of Canada's population is visible minority. Only wishes to answer it, we will let that go. half of that number is in the House of Commons. Less than 10% of the House of Commons is visible minority. There are a greater The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. number of visible minorities in the Senate of Canada than there are in the House of Commons. The Senate better reflects the makeup of Ms. Olivia Chow: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I can think of lots of this country when it comes to visible minority representation. things to do with $92 million. I can imagine how many buses that would purchase. I can imagine how many child care spaces we could Let us look at the number of women. Clearly, in Canada, 50% of create each year. I can imagine how many hours of home care the population is female, but in this place, only 25% of support and how many seniors could be served with $92 million. As parliamentarians are female. In the Senate, 38% of senators are to the bill that is stuck, I do not understand why we need a Senate. female. There, again, the Senate is more reflective of the makeup of The best way to deal with it, of course, is to stop funding it. this country. Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on vote 1 before us, which concerns the The Senate and its makeup is not the archaic institution many funding for Senate operations. We should take a look at how much it members in this place would have people believe. It actually better actually costs to run the Senate. It costs about $90 million a year to reflects what this country is and what it is turning into in the coming run the Senate of Canada, but let us take a step back and actually put decades as we become more diverse and more pluralistic. That is that into perspective. Let us see how much it costs to run the House why the Senate serves a useful function. It serves to counterbalance of Commons in a year. The House of Commons costs more than the majoritarianism of this place, which under-represents minorities three times that amount. In fact, it costs almost four times that and ensures that the minority voices of women and visible minorities amount to run the House each and every year. It costs some $350 are heard in Parliament and here in Ottawa. million a year. Using the logic that many have used in the House during this debate that it costs too much money to run the Senate of There is a second reason the Senate serves an important function. Canada, perhaps we should abolish the House of Commons. It serves as a chamber of sober second thought. It serves as a useful — Clearly, that is a trite argument that is nonsensical and something (2100) that most Canadians would see as absurd. ● The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. There has been a lot of controversy and debate about the Senate. Throughout the course of the debate, members have paid respect That is why we are talking about vote 1 and why we previously had to those who have had the floor during the course of their remarks. I a debate on the motion to abolish the Senate. There are certainly a realize that from time to time, members will heckle, but members number of parliamentarians who are under investigation right now. need to respect the fact that another one of their colleagues has the We should allow those processes to unfold. We, as all people in this floor, and I would ask, if they have to make these kinds of outbursts, country, should believe in due process and the rule of law. that perhaps they should take it outside and discuss it among their other colleagues. If members of Parliament, whether here or in the other place, are found to have expensed items that are inappropriate, then those The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. parliamentarians should be held to account and the expenses repaid. However, let us not take four ongoing investigations of four senators Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, the Senate serves as a and paint the rest of the 101 senators with the same brush. That is chamber of sober second thought to review legislation. I just want to unfair to the people involved. It is unfair, in particular, because they highlight three pieces of legislation that have gone through this are not able to attend this place and speak in their own defence, so I House over the years that the Senate has defeated, amended or am speaking today in defence of the work they do. reviewed. 17764 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply For example, setting aside one's views on the difficult issue of House of Commons as it is upon the Cabinet, and there can be no doubt that its abortion, let us look at what happened to Bill C-43 during the time of influence in this respect is salutary. Mr. Mulroney's government. It was defeated in the Senate. It was the bill that would have restricted abortion in this country. The Senate defeated Bill C-43. Otherwise, today in Canada we would have had The check that the upper chamber provides on the executive restrictions on abortion. Therefore, I would ask members opposite branch of government, something that many Canadians have been who have strongly held convictions on this whether that was a role increasingly concerned about over the last 30 or 40 years, is a useful that they would have seen as useful as played by the Senate. function. In fact, modern North American institutions are based on More recently, after the last election, the government introduced, Montesquieu's doctrine of the division of powers as a way to best as part of its electoral commitment, Bill C-10, the safe streets and achieve outcomes in society, and the way to best achieve justness communities act. It sailed through this House of Commons, and it and fairness in society. got to the Senate. Suddenly the members of government and the senators realized that there were problems with respect to national security in the bill. Therefore, the Senate introduced an amendment ● (2105) which then forced the bill back to this House. The amendment was adopted by this House, the legislation received royal assent. That gap, that shortfall in the bill, was addressed by the Senate of Canada. His division of powers principle is quite simple. We needed to More recently, as I mentioned before, Bill C-290, that did not move away from the error of the absolute rights of kings and receive a standing vote in this House of Commons and received only dictators, where they held all the power, to a system of government one witness at committee, the very proponent of the bill, did not where power was diffused. We needed a system where power was receive sufficient scrutiny and oversight. The Senate is currently not concentrated in a single place, in the Prime Minister's Office, the doing its work in that regard. cabinet or the executive branch of government, but diffused among Those are just three examples of the important work that the the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Senate has done over the years in its role as a chamber of sober second thought to review legislation. There is a another reason why the Senate serves a useful function. The Senate, in a bicameral system of government, serves that end That is, its role as an investigative and research and deliberative of the division of power. It serves that end of diffusion of power. It body. In the history of the Senate back to the 1960s and 1970s, the serves that end to provide a check and balance on the concentration investigative work of the Senate into social policy became integral to of power in one place. That is why, as I said earlier, there are 50 the development of Canada's modern social safety welfare net. The countries around the world with bicameral legislatures. development of the Canada pension plan and the Canada Health Act and the development of policies involving social transfers to the provinces for health care, education, post-secondary research and development were all influenced by the work that the Senate did In addition to these reasons why the Senate serves a useful over the years. More recently, the work that the Senate did on mental function, let us talk about the practical, political realities of health influenced government and House of Commons decisions on abolishing the Senate. The reality is that Canada exists today in legislation, policy and funding for mental health concerns. The part because of the Senate. It was the deal that brought the provinces Senate does the same thing as royal commissions, public inquiries and colonies before Confederation into the federation. and external task forces, but it does so at a lesser cost than those royal commissions and in a much quicker and more timely manner. There is yet another reason why the Senate serves a useful In fact, when we read the Debates on Confederation, it is clear that function. It is the same reason why in over 50 states around the colonies like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec would never world there are bicameral legislatures: the Senate serves to provide a had joined this federation had it not been for the Senate. They made check and balance, not just on the majoritarianism of the lower it clear they were worried about the rapidly growing populations in chamber in this House of Commons, but also on the executive Canada West, now Ontario. They were worried about being branch of government. subsumed by the majoritarianism of a rising Ontario. That is why they wanted the upper chamber to serve as a protector of their I would like to quote Sir Clifford Sifton. He was a Canadian interests, whether they were regional in nature, reflecting smaller minister at the turn of the 20th century who helped open up western populations, or linguistic, reflecting the francophone realities in Canada for the waves of immigration that settled the great Prairies many parts of the country. and produced the powerhouse of energy and agriculture that we see today. Here is what Clifford Sifton said in the book The New Era in Canada in 1917: Many of those provinces, legislatures and national assemblies No nation should be under unchecked, single-chamber government.... It must also be remembered that, under our system, the power of the Cabinet tends to grow at the would not agree to the abolition of the Senate. They would see it as a expense of the House of Commons.... The Senate is not so much a check on the diminution of their voice here in our nation's capital. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17765

Business of Supply The political and practical reality is that abolition of the Senate is senators based on the court's ruling, then we also need to strengthen not something that is going to happen. It is not something that we this very House of Commons. could easily reopen without addressing the other demands that were made during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, those In Ontario, the province from which I come, we have 24 senators. divisive debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s. There are many In Ontario, unlike Quebec where senators serve at large, if 24 more things on the table. If we went to a Dominion-provincial senators run in province-wide elections we could see up to six conference on first ministers to talk about the abolition of the Senate million or more voters voting for a senatorial candidate. In that and whether or not we believe that would require the 7/50 amending situation it is not inconceivable that a single Senate candidate could formula or unanimity amongst Canada's 11 legislatures, the point is win an election with four million, five million or more votes, this: it would be opening a can of worms that no one in the House dwarfing the number of voters and constituents that members of this would want to open. chamber represent. Accordingly, when those senators who have the legitimacy of being elected with some three million to four million In particular, I ask members from Quebec on both sides of the votes confront the House about what should be done with certain House what they would expect the Province of Quebec to demand, pieces of legislation, we need to think about strengthening this with respect to the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society or the House of Commons to ensure that the increase in the power of the recognition of Quebec's nationhood. What would they expect in Senate, because of term limits and elections, is reflected also in an terms of the demand for a veto on the part of provinces for any future increase in power of this part of the legislature, the House of changes to the Constitution? What would they expect when terms of Commons. This would ensure that the people's place that is the original Meech Lake demand completely devolve immigration to represented by 308 members here today has an effective and the provinces and relinquish federal control about who comes into continued voice as the primary centre of power in our nation's our country and who is accepted to be a citizen? capital. It would reopen the debate about who gets the power of For all those reasons I believe the Senate serves a useful role. I appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. There are all the believe members should vote to ensure its continued operation. sorts of issues that certainly would be reopened for those who While the institution is not perfect, and while those who have made advocate the abolition of the Senate. Therefore, for a practical mistakes should be held to account, let us ensure that our institutions reason, abolition is not really something that we can pursue, nor is it remain strong to respond to the future challenges that Canada faces. something that I support. It is also something that we cannot do ● (2115) through the back door. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened The Constitution of this country, with its written and unwritten carefully to the hon. member's speech. Some of the comments I aspects as they have been interpreted by rulings of the Supreme made during his speech were in favour of some of what he was Court, is the basic law of this country and we must respect that saying because I did detect a dedication to democratic principles in Constitution. We must respect the way it needs to be amended. We his speech, which I fundamentally share. I think that on both sides of should wait until the Supreme Court renders its judgment in the the House we can recognize when a democrat stands up, but we may reference case that the government has asked it to consider. disagree. ● (2110) Where I fundamentally disagree is that if we were to look at the Senate today, because of its partisan nature, it is not functioning as Mr. Speaker, while I believe in a bicameral Parliament, while I that second House necessary to ensure checks and balances. There is believe that we need a lower and upper chamber for the reasons I a contradiction between the way it has been created, in that it is have just outlined, I also believe that the Senate needs to be unelected, and that it is partisan. reformed. We need to have term limits. My suggestion to my fellow parliamentarians is that we should have term limits based on the life Therefore, how can the member, as the democrat that I know he is, of a Parliament. Therefore, instead of setting a fixed term limit of stand up to defend that institution that really does not do its eight or nine years, we should base it on a Parliament. When a constitutional job? Parliament is dissolved for the purposes of a general election, that is Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that there are when senators should seek re-election. We might want to go to a challenges in our Parliament. I acknowledge that there is a need to system where a senator serves for the life of two or three Parliaments reform certain aspects of our institutions. We have challenges in this before seeking re-election, but I strongly believe that we need to House as does the Senate. However, I do not think the solution is to have a system where there a limit on the length of time a senator can either abolish the Senate or to seek to do through the back door what serve. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will give us some we are unable to accomplish through the front door, which is to guidance in that respect. starve the upper chamber of the funds it needs to operate. I also believe that we need to have popular consultations or Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it elections of senators. That is incredibly important. That way we can is somewhat sad to see in the dying days of this session prior to provide Canadian citizens the accountability they are seeking for the summer break that we are spending the time talking about the Senate upper chamber. and Senate reform when there are so many real issues. We need to do this thoughtfully. We cannot do it willy-nilly. There Here we are in debate on our main estimates. People are are unintended consequences if we proceed too rapidly and too concerned about our middle class, the jobs, economy, taxes and rashly. If we are to proceed with term limits and an election of health care. There is so much more that we could be talking about. 17766 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Instead, the NDP, not using very much wisdom, has decided to led by five women. It was under Mackenzie King that women finally allocate today to be all about the Senate, knowing full well that no took their place in the Senate. matter what we decide here today absolutely nothing is going to have an impact in terms of the future of the Senate because it requires It was not the Senate that handed women their victory. Indeed, constitutional changes. according to the Senate, women were not persons, and being a Given that the NDP persists in the discussion of constitutional person was one of the qualifications required to serve in the Senate. change, which is what it has chosen to talk about today, can the This is still true today under the Constitution. This case, which was member indicate whether there has been any interest from any of the settled in 1930, was known as the “Persons Case”. provinces in having a constitutional discussion about changes to the Senate. I raised this point because the member mentioned it. If he had not, Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I think it is public record that I might not have talked about it. As we are well aware, it was a there have been no first ministers conferences on constitutional private committee, not the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada, change. I actually believe that is good thing. that ruled in favour of women. That committee was known at the time as the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council. We need to remain focused on what Canadians are telling us, which is that they are concerned about jobs and economic growth. We, as parliamentarians, need to be focused on those issues and not To conclude, I would like to say that I am very pleased that the get sidetracked by debate about reopening the Constitution, which I member spoke about this. think would be incredibly divisive and distracting. Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for member is both someone who takes his role as a parliamentarian her comments. seriously and one who has truly elevated the debate here tonight by bringing in the historic tone. I agree with the member. It was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom that declared that women were That elevation has been important because we are all working late persons. in the chamber. I was disappointed by the earlier remarks from my law school colleague, the member for Halifax, in trying to dance around some of the twin absurd motions we have before Parliament [English] that are clearly unconstitutional and clearly ultra vires. I agree with the member. It was the Judicial Committee of The I would like to ask the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to Privy Council that ruled that women were persons for the purposes talk about how both of the motions we have seen tonight, from the of election. I think we still have a long way to go to ensure proper member for Pontiac and the member for Winnipeg Centre, are representation of women in Parliament, and that is why I strongly unconstitutional at their core and distract from the real debate of support the increased representation of women in this chamber. It is Senate reform that our government has been advancing. something that I will always support. ● (2120) Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is an Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, incredibly important document. It is the basic law of this country. I echo the comments of the hon. member for Durham that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills has indeed elevated the It provides for the protection of minority rights, whether it is debate. As a former member of the cabinet for intergovernmental through the bicameral structure of Parliament or through the affairs, he knows the file well and he is a passionate defender of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It provides for the democracy. Therefore, I hate to have to disagree with him. governance and the structures of governance of this country. It is very difficult to amend. That was done purposely, to ensure In the past, I have always supported the Senate, but what I have that rash and poorly thought-out decisions were not taken to change seen transpire in the last few years has shaken my confidence to the things in the heat of the moment. For that reason, I think we need to core. Rather than it being a house of sober second thought, we have a respect the Constitution. We should not try to do through the back chamber of partisan clout with no respect for democracy. It was door what cannot be accomplished through the front door of prepared to take Bill C-311, which was passed democratically by this constitutional change. House, and defeat it without allowing it to go committee for hearings. This was the climate bill that had been passed here. [Translation] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a point of great interest I fear that a future democratically elected House of Commons to me, namely women and the Constitution, women and the Senate. could have remnant Conservative senators appointed by the Prime Minister continuing to do the former prime minister's bidding against As the member knows, women were not always eligible to sit in a newly elected House of Commons with different views. I think we the Senate. Indeed, they were not admitted until 1930, and only after are in trouble, and the only solution may be abolition, although not fighting for this right. They won after a hard-fought battle, primarily the current proposal before us. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17767

Business of Supply Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe, as I have Is that really so? Has that ever been the case on any given day? I outlined before, that we need to check the majoritarianism of the doubt it. House of Commons. We need to provide a check on the role of the executive branch of government. We need a place of sober second At the time, only the elite could be members of the Senate. There thought to review legislation and to do its investigative and research were two main conditions. We have to go back to the 19th century. work. For all those reasons, I think the Senate of Canada has a role to To be a senator, a person had to be over 30 and own property worth play in our system of governance, which is why I believe we need to at least $4,000, which was a lot of money at the time. have a bicameral legislature. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not Governments of all stripes immediately saw a partisan advantage think that I would ever say this, but I agree with much of what the to appointing senators, and the problems began. It was supposed to hon. member has had to say, especially with respect to the check on be a chamber of people who could make wise decisions, a chamber majoritarianism. It is particularly relevant in my small province of of sober second thought. Has it ever been that? Not often enough for Prince Edward Island. Since the Conservative government has come our liking, because if it were truly working well, then we would not to power, we have seen the withdrawal of front-line services for be against it. Unfortunately, history tells us that year after year, immigrants, taxpayers and veterans. There needs to be some sort of a decade after decade, there have been problems with that chamber. check on this majoritarianism. However, the member did say that he has some difficulty with Allow me to quote George Brown, who said at the time that the there being a reopening of federal-provincial negotiations with Senate was the key to federation, respect to Senate reform. Does he not agree, given the long delay ...the very essence of our compact. Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to that the government went through before sending this to the Supreme give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition Court of Canada, that the result of the reference to the Supreme that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could Court of Canada will inevitably be those federal-provincial we have advanced a step. discussions that the Prime Minister seems to abhor? ● (2125) At the time, it was a founding element of Canada and the intentions were noble. However, reality soon caught up. Do I really Hon. Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member need to talk about Senators Harb, Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy? I do about his point on Prince Edward Island. However, Prince Edward not have to talk about them any more in this place, because everyone Island did not join Confederation in 1867. It said “no thank you”. It knows all about it. was not until the offer was sweetened by the newly formed Dominion of Canada that Prince Edward Island joined, in 1873. At the beginning of my speech, I said that there were three With respect to his question, I would say we should avoid options. One of them is to maintain the status quo. That is obviously reopening the Constitution because I think it is going to open issues unacceptable, although some still believe in it. For all sorts of far greater than just reform of the Senate. What we could accomplish reasons, they try to instill fear in us, but all they really want is to go after the Supreme Court rules, through non-constitutional means, back to the way things were and appoint people who will do their would be a preferable course of action. bidding. The second option is reform. Do you believe it, Mr. [Translation] Speaker? Do you know in what year the first attempt to reform the Senate took place? It was in 1874. We have been talking about Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I Senate reform for almost 140 years. Has anything happened during should say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for that time? Not really. Scarborough—Rouge River. This evening we are discussing a motion, a notice of opposition to More recently, attempts were made in 1980 and 1990. There was a specific budget item. In fact, it is the role of the House to decide the Molgat-Cosgrove committee in 1984, the Macdonald commis- what sort of money to give out here and there. As everyone can see, sion in 1985, and even the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992. Did there is one question and three answers. Do we need an upper anything happen? On this side of the House, we believe that the only chamber? Some will want to stick to the status quo, some will say possible solution, in light of the Senate's history, is to abolish it. that reform is in order and others will say that the Senate must be abolished. ● (2130)

The Senate as we know it today is an historic compromise that However, that is not what we are talking about this evening. I was made when this country was born. It is a hybrid of the British would like to remind hon. members that the Senate has two types of House of Lords and the U.S. Senate when it comes to its values and budgets. Even if our motion is adopted tonight, the Senate will still what its founders really wanted it to achieve. In fact, this was a have a $32 million budget under laws enacted by Parliament. We matter of great debate during the Charlottetown Conference and the tend to forget that. Quebec Conference in 1864. This is what was said at the time: Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Do we need a bicameral system? The provinces decided a long Prime Minister. Senators represent regions and provinces in order to balance the representation in the House of Commons. Less populated regions have a stronger time ago that such a system was unnecessary, and it did not bring voice in the Senate so as to ensure representation for regional and minority interests. about an apocalypse as some people claim. 17768 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot once commented allow some of the smaller areas, such as the Maritimes, to feel that about the British parliamentary system that, if we had an ideal House they had adequate representation. That has been part of our system. of Commons, we would not need a higher chamber. I believe that we need to look at how we work together for the good of this country. I would say that most Canadians would agree that this is a great country, in part because of the Senate, which is one institution Is the motion unconstitutional? Some have suggested that that is among many that are important. the case. I would like to point out to my colleagues that one of the privileges of this House is passing a budget. Part of the Senate's The NDP continues to muse about the abolition of the Senate. budget is granted by the House of Commons. It is therefore our What would be the effect on the Maritimes if they did not have the prerogative to move this type of motion. Senate floor, the guarantee that they will receive as many seats in the Senate as they will here in the House of Commons? Has the member As I was saying earlier, part of the upper chamber's budget is considered that policy and its implications for other areas of the statutory. I would like to once again remind hon. members that the country that would then be under the threat of under-representation? Senate has a statutory budget of $32 million, which is not exactly peanuts. [Translation] The problem right now is that the Prime Minister appoints people Mr. Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his and then he washes his hands of them. There is a serious problem question. with accountability. The Prime Minister cannot appoint people left and right or appoint just anyone and then, when they do something As I mentioned in my speech, the notion of equality was a factor wrong, say that he is not responsible and that those people will pay when the Senate was initially created. It was designed to provide back the money. That is not how it works. increased representation for regions that do not have large populations. We all understand that. The Conservative government has managed to do even worse than its Liberal predecessors when it comes to political partisanship in the However, although the original intent was a good one, the upper chamber. That is why we are having this debate tonight. The institution no longer works, and it is partisan. Instead of trying to situation is going from bad to worse. The more time passes, the less repeat what we have done over the past 140 years by trying to reform people see the relevance of this institution. What is its purpose? an institution that does not work, the House should have the courage to look at other solutions. I certainly do not want to paint all senators with the same brush. It is not my intention or the intention of the members on this side of the Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, House to say that everyone is cheating. That is not our objective. The I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, which was rather point is that the system is not working. We have been trying to restrained, compared to the speeches other members of his party change things for a long time. There are always problems, but they made today. never get solved. In the end, we are always left with the status quo, which everyone in the House finds unacceptable, I hope. I hope that I understand that we need to have a debate on the Senate and start no one in the House still believes in the status quo, otherwise we looking at ways to solve what has become somewhat of a problem. have a problem. Does my colleague not think they are misleading Canadians by To conclude, I would like to quote someone people here know, trying to make them think we can abolish the Senate by waving a Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator. On March 2, 2013, magic wand or that by depriving it of funding we can solve the he said: problem? I was very naive...I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. [In fact, he shared the idyllic view of the Senate at the time.] I found it to be extremely Does the member not agree that if the Senate is not operational, partisan...on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these under our democratic system, we would not be able to pass laws, people were trying to be members of parliament and they weren't. since any law must go through the Senate to receive royal assent? Is If I had to choose today, I would say that I'm probably closer to closing the place the NDP's motion not overly simplistic? down. I just don't see the usefulness. ● (2140) More and more Canadians feel that the Senate has no place in our system, not because it does not have a defined role, but because it Mr. Denis Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his does not fulfill its role the way it should. Throughout history, the question. Senate has been manipulated for strictly partisan purposes. On this side of the House, we have never said that we could ● (2135) resolve this issue by just snapping our fingers or waving a magic [English] wand. We have always said that the institution is dysfunctional and Mr. Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I that we will have to roll up our sleeves and find other solutions. want to thank my colleague across the way for adding some very important points to the debate. However, as I pointed out twice in my speech, the motion does not state that all the Senate's money will disappear, but only the portion The previous speaker pointed out that the Senate is one of the voted by the House of Commons. The other portion, which is institutions of Parliament. The founding of Canada was partly based statutory, nevertheless amounts to $32 million. I think they can do a on the fact that there would be regional representation that would thing or two with that money. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17769

Business of Supply [English] Then we have Mr. Patrick Brazeau, an even bigger embarrass- Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): ment, who found himself in the middle of many controversies, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the including repeated absences from the Senate, an allegation of abuse debate on this important concurrence motion. of his housing allowance and charges of sexual assault. In 2012 Mr. Patrick Brazeau declared that his primary residence was in in It is a belief of mine, as it is of the rest of my colleagues and many Maniwaki, Quebec, which enabled him to receive a housing Canadians across the country, that the funding of $58,169,816 under allowance for a secondary residence in the national capital region. the Senate program expenditures in the main estimates allocated for However, we have all learned that media reports indicate the the funding of the Senate under vote 1 should cease to be provided to Maniwaki residence is actually the home of Patrick Brazeau's father. the Senate. On May 9, Deloitte's audit and the report of the Senate committee on the internal economy ordered Patrick Brazeau to repay $48,000 in We are in the midst of a democratic crisis in this country, and unjustifiable claims. The senator resigned from the Conservative Canadians across the country agree that there is no place for an caucus. We are seeing a trend here. unelected, unaccountable Senate in our democracy.

The origins of the Senate date back to Confederation. The Abuse of privileges does not rest only with the Conservative members of the red chamber were asked to review and scrutinize caucus but with Liberal senators as well. legislation passed by the House of Commons. It was intended to ensure the representation of minorities and of provinces and regions in the federal legislative process. These are only some of the abuses of power that we are aware of at the moment. We do not know what else is to come. While we As the member for Timmins—James Bay clearly articulated certainly need an independent audit of residency requirements, earlier, at the time that the Senate was created, these minorities were housing allowances and travel expenses in order to find out whether the wealthy people of this country. They were concerned that the certain senators are abusing public funds, at the end of the day we interests of the wealthy few in this country might not be represented need to abolish an institution that no longer serves Canadians. sufficiently in the elected House of Commons and wanted to make sure that people were appointed to represent the interests of the wealthy. In any other Canadian workplace, this type of behaviour and lack of responsibility and accountability would result in disciplinary It was also intended to be less partisan. However, the Senate has action and, quite possibly, the cessation of the employment never really played this role, as senators vote according to the party relationship, but here what we see are senators stepping away from they represent rather than according to the interests of the regions caucus while maintaining all of their other privileges. they are supposed to be representing. ● (2145) In the past few months, information has come to light about certain Liberal and Conservative senators that raises many questions and concerns about the use of public funds granted to those senators. It is outrageous that according to Conservatives, senators are Constituents and Canadians across the country are wondering about presumed innocent, but unemployed Canadians are guilty by default. Mike Duffy and his $90,000. Fortunately, we have the Leader of the It is clear that the Senate is incapable of rectifying its own problems. Opposition asking all the right questions, and Canadians are looking for real answers from the government. While the Senate asked Deloitte to review the expenses of former Canadians deserve to know the details surrounding the $90,000 Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, former Conservative Senator loan from former PMO chief of staff Nigel Wright to Mr. Duffy to Pamela Wallin, Liberal Senator Mac Harb and former Conservative repay housing allowances he falsely claimed. Despite his permanent Senator Patrick Brazeau, the firm is still in the process of completing residence being clearly in Ontario, Mr. Duffy declared that he lives its audit. in Prince Edward Island, where he owns a cottage. The $90,000 loan allowed Mr. Duffy to repay Canadians, and he now no longer The leader of the government in the Senate has stated that the participates in the audit. Mr. Duffy left the Conservative caucus, and Senate would make the audit public, but we know there is no on May 19 Nigel Wright also resigned for his actions. This guarantee that this will actually happen. Moreover, the Senate transaction between Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy is now with the committee on internal economy removed paragraphs in its report that Ethics Commissioner to evaluate whether there was a violation of the criticized Mike Duffy because he had reimbursed the amount he Conflict of Interest Act. The RCMP is also investigating Mike owed. It clear that all public funding for this institution must end. Duffy's expenses. Then we have Ms. Pamela Wallin, who is supposedly a In 2005, the current Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to representative from Saskatchewan, yet primarily resides in Toronto. reform the Senate, to make it the three Es, equal, elected and Since 2010 Senator Wallin has claimed $300,000 worth of travel effective. He went on to table several bills on Senate reform on expenses not related to travel to her province of origin and has been behalf of this so-called commitment from his government for seen at numerous Conservative fundraising events. The senator left change, yet the bills went nowhere. They never rose to the top of the the Conservative caucus and chose to sit as an independent as of priority list. Even further, the Prime Minister broke his promise not May 17 of this year. to appoint senators and in fact appointed a whopping 59 senators. 17770 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply The Senate is a fundamentally undemocratic institution, used by ● (2150) both the Liberals and Conservatives to thank their friends, defeated candidates and donors. They are appointed not because of merit, but On one hand, we have the Conservatives' so-called reform that is as a reward for loyal service to the party in power. The Prime going nowhere. On the other hand, the Liberals are supporting the Minister's so-called Senate reform is without a doubt, a complete status quo. Fortunately— failure. Like the Liberals, the Conservatives are only part of the The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. The problem. member's time has expired. Before we go to questions and comments, the hon. government House leader is rising on a point. It was not until February 1, that the Prime Minister referred the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court will give its legal *** opinion on the processes to follow under the constitution to limit the [Translation] terms of senators, elect senators, eliminate the requirements for senators to have a residence in the province that they represent and, SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR FIRST NATIONS ACT of course, the abolishment of the Senate. The Supreme Court BILL S-8—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION decision may take years to come, but Canadians want and Canadians deserve action today. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House While the Conservatives and Liberals rise in their places to defend that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of the status quo and their senators, the NDP is proud to stand up for Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to third reading stage of Canadians and their tax dollars. Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. The Senate is outdated and fundamentally anti-democratic. We Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a have senators who abuse the public purse. Also, that place is minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to supposed to be the place of sober second thought. However, in fact, allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and it is allowing partisan lines, as well as blocking legislation that is disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill. passed in the House of Commons a number of times, such as the NDP bill, Bill C-311, which would have ensured responsibility and *** action from Canada to prevent climate change. It passed the House of Commons, but the Senate stopped it. EXPANSION AND CONSERVATION OF CANADA’S NATIONAL PARKS ACT

Premiers, including Saskatchewan's Brad Wall, and many BILL S-15—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION Canadians across the country, agree with us. It costs $92.5 million a year to run the Senate, over $90 million a year to cover the costs of Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House salaries and travel for political organizers and people responsible for of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House raising funds for the Liberals and the Conservatives. This is that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of outrageous. The Senate is an archaic institution with appointed Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage senators, some of whom, as we know, abuse their privileges and do of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and not represent the interests or values of Canadians. the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the I know in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River, this is a lot of Canada Shipping Act, 2001. money that could be put to much better use, yet it will take the annual taxes of over 8,000 average families to pay the Senate's tab. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a Senator Duffy will be collecting another $1.3 million in salary, while minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to Patrick Brazeau will be collecting $7 million over the course of the allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and remainder of his appointment. disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I am sure that the There are many residents of Scarborough—Rouge River strug- House appreciates this notice from the Leader of the Government in gling to provide for themselves and their families. There are much the House of Commons. more important uses for our taxpayer money. Youth unemployment in the GTA is double that of the national average. Where is the real *** job creation strategy? Canadians across the country are in need of [English] affordable housing. Investments in housing are what Canadians are looking for. In my riding, greater investment for the crumbling MAIN ESTIMATES, 2013-14 infrastructure and investment in public transit services are needed. CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—THE SENATE This $90 million could go very far in investment in public transit in Scarborough. The House resumed consideration of the motion. Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I Neither the Conservatives, nor the Liberals, are taking this issue listened with some attention to the address by the member for seriously. Scarborough—Rouge River tonight. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17771

Business of Supply She takes issue with the Prime Minister appointing some 50 brought to the Supreme Court before the government even took that senators, having said that he would not do so. She said that the route? Conservatives and the Liberals had not taken this issue seriously. The most responsible way to go about changing the Senate would The member, if she were listening to the debate in the House be to, first, get an opinion from the highest court in the land. I tonight, would know that we cannot abolish the Senate simply by wonder why the NDP did not propose that when it had the chance? cutting funding. It is part of the constitution and we simply cannot Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, once again, this is ignore it. another bit of NDP history I can share with everybody in the House. On the issue of appointing senators, would the member not For decades, the NDP has consistently voted against funding for the acknowledge that the era when the Prime Minister had left about 18 Senate and voted to abolish it. It has been in support of abolishing seats vacant, hoping to appoint senators who were elected, like the the Senate for decades. ones from Alberta, after a coalition of NDP, Liberal and Bloc leaders I am very happy that I have had the opportunity to make that clear proposed to appoint their own senators, the Prime Minister acted to yet once again to all the members of the House. fill those positions so they would not be used that way. [Translation] Will the member not admit that the motion today is just a Mr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I gimmick. Although we are all upset about abuses in the Senate, we thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River for her speech. are seriously trying to make— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Is it not rather strange that after the Senate was created at the Scarborough—Rouge River. request of the provinces, they discovered it was not useful? That is rather strange. Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Nanaimo—Alberni of some of Canada's history. I would like my colleague to talk about the work that needs to be When Canada was formed, five of our provinces had senates, had done and specifically what we could do that would be better than a upper Houses. The first thing Manitoba did, for example, was get rid partisan Senate. of the senate. In 1876, Manitoba's upper House was abolished. In [English] 1892, New Brunswick abolished its senate. In 1893, Prince Edward Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Island abolished its senate. Then Nova Scotia and Quebec followed colleague for looking for some constructive criticism so we can and abolished their senates. actually do some positive work moving forward. All of these provinces that did abolished their upper House had no As he mentioned and as I mentioned earlier, the five provinces in constitutional problem. They are not having any problems. There is a Canada that did have an upper House, as quickly as they could, way to do it. The Constitution does allow for it and if Canadians started abolishing them because they did not feel an upper House have the will, we will accomplish that. was very useful. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! What can we do with the dollars that are being put toward the ● (2155) Senate? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. I would ask all hon. members, when another of their colleagues has As I mentioned, we could be investing in housing, transit, creating the floor, they really need to keep the noise down. I am sure there are jobs for our youth, ensuring that our communities are safe. There is other colleagues who wish to hear the comments and questions from so much that can be done. There is absolutely no place for an others. Please keep the noise down. unelected, unaccountable Senate in our democracy. It is time to roll up the red carpet and close down the Senate. Let us abolish the Mr. Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have Senate. noticed over my two years here that when women members of the House stand to speak, the heckling is usually much worse than when *** male members stand to speak. BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

The member for Calgary would probably— OPPOSITION MOTION—THE SENATE The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I do not think that is a The House resumed consideration of the motion, point of order. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 10 p.m., it is Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. I enjoyed the member's speech, especially those parts that delved into the constitutional complexities of modifying the Senate. Call in the members. ● (2240) If the NDP were serious about the issue, if it wanted to look at the issue rigorously and substantively instead of engaging in partisan (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the rhetoric, why did NDP months ago not suggest that the matter be following division:) 17772 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply (Division No. 730) Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dykstra YEAS Easter Eyking Members Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Allen (Welland) Angus Fletcher Foote Ashton Atamanenko Fry Galipeau Aubin Ayala Gallant Gill Bellavance Blanchette Glover Goguen Blanchette-Lamothe Borg Goodyear Gosal Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Gourde Grewal Brosseau Caron Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Cash Charlton Hawn Hayes Chisholm Choquette Hiebert Hillyer Chow Christopherson Holder Hsu Cleary Comartin James Jean Côté Crowder Jones Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Cullen Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Dewar Dionne Labelle Kerr Komarnicki Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Lamoureux Lauzon Dusseault Fortin Lebel LeBlanc (Beauséjour) Freeman Garrison Leitch Lemieux Genest-Jourdain Giguère Leung Lizon Godin Gravelle Lobb Lukiwski Groguhé Harris (St. John's East) Lunney MacAulay Hughes Jacob MacKenzie May Julian Kellway Mayes McCallum Lapointe Larose McColeman McGuinty Latendresse Laverdière McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Menegakis Menzies Liu Mai Merrifield Miller Marston Martin Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Masse Mathyssen Moore (Fundy Royal) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Nicholson Norlock Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Obhrai O'Connor Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Mulcair Nantel Oliver O'Neill Gordon Nash Nicholls Opitz O'Toole Nunez-Melo Papillon Pacetti Paradis Patry Péclet Payne Poilievre Perreault Pilon Preston Raitt Plamondon Quach Rajotte Regan Rafferty Rankin Reid Richards Ravignat Raynault Rickford Ritz Rousseau Saganash Saxton Scarpaleggia Sandhu Scott Seeback Sgro Sellah Sims (Newton—North Delta) Shea Shipley Sitsabaiesan Stewart Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Stoffer Sullivan sor) Toone Tremblay Smith Sopuck Turmel–— 95 Stanton St-Denis Storseth Strahl NAYS Sweet Tilson Toet Toews Members Trost Trottier Truppe Tweed Adler Aglukkaq Uppal Valcourt Albas Albrecht Valeriote Van Kesteren Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Van Loan Vellacott Allison Ambler Wallace Warawa Ambrose Anderson Warkentin Watson Andrews Armstrong Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Ashfield Aspin Weston (Saint John) Baird Bateman Wilks Williamson Bélanger Bennett Wong Woodworth Benoit Bergen Yelich Young (Oakville) Bernier Bezan Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer–— 182 Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brison PAIRED Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Nil Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated. Butt Byrne Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael *** Carrie Casey Chisu Chong MAIN ESTIMATES 2013-14 Clarke Clement Cotler Crockatt CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—THE SENATE Cuzner Daniel Davidson Dechert The Speaker: The next question is on opposed vote No. 1. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17773

Business of Supply Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacAulay MacKenzie May Some hon. members: Agreed. Mayes McCallum McColeman McGuinty Some hon. members: No. McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) McLeod Menegakis Menzies The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) yea. Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Some hon. members: Yea. Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Opitz O'Toole Pacetti Paradis Some hon. members: Nay. Payne Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Regan The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. Reid Richards Rickford Ritz And five or more members having risen: Saxton Scarpaleggia Seeback Sgro ● (2250) Shea Shipley Shory Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the sor) following division:) Smith Sopuck Stanton St-Denis (Division No. 731) Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Toews YEAS Trost Trottier Members Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt Adler Aglukkaq Valeriote Van Kesteren Albas Albrecht Van Loan Vellacott Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Wallace Warawa Allison Ambler Warkentin Watson Ambrose Anderson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Andrews Armstrong Weston (Saint John) Ashfield Aspin Wilks Williamson Baird Bateman Wong Woodworth Bélanger Bennett Yelich Young (Oakville) Benoit Bergen Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer–— 182 Bernier Bezan Blaney Block NAYS Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brison Members Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Allen (Welland) Angus Butt Byrne Ashton Atamanenko Calandra Calkins Aubin Ayala Cannan Carmichael Bellavance Blanchette Carrie Casey Blanchette-Lamothe Borg Chisu Chong Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Clarke Clement Brosseau Caron Cotler Crockatt Cash Charlton Cuzner Daniel Chisholm Choquette Davidson Dechert Chow Christopherson Del Mastro Devolin Cleary Comartin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Côté Crowder Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dykstra Cullen Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Easter Eyking Davies (Vancouver East) Day Fantino Fast Dewar Dionne Labelle Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Fletcher Foote Dubé Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Fry Galipeau Dusseault Fortin Gallant Gill Freeman Garrison Glover Goguen Genest-Jourdain Giguère Goodyear Gosal Godin Gravelle Gourde Grewal Groguhé Harris (St. John's East) Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hughes Jacob Hawn Hayes Julian Kellway Hiebert Hillyer Lapointe Larose Holder Hsu Latendresse Laverdière James Jean LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Jones Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Liu Mai Karygiannis Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Marston Martin Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Masse Mathyssen Kerr Komarnicki Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Lamoureux Lauzon Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Lebel LeBlanc (Beauséjour) Mulcair Nantel Leitch Lemieux Nash Nicholls Leung Lizon Nunez-Melo Papillon 17774 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply

Patry Péclet Clement Crockatt Perreault Pilon Daniel Davidson Plamondon Quach Dechert Del Mastro Rafferty Rankin Devolin Dreeshen Ravignat Raynault Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Rousseau Saganash Fantino Fast Sandhu Scott Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Sellah Sims (Newton—North Delta) Fletcher Galipeau Sitsabaiesan Stewart Gallant Gill Stoffer Sullivan Glover Goguen Toone Tremblay Goodyear Gosal Turmel–— 95 Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) PAIRED Hawn Hayes Nil Hiebert Hillyer Holder James The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) [Translation] Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) Lake Lauzon moved: Lebel Leitch Lemieux Leung That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, except any Lizon Lobb vote disposed of earlier today and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be Lukiwski Lunney concurred in. MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod Menegakis Menzies Merrifield Miller [English] Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Some hon. members: Agreed. Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Some hon. members: No. Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say Raitt Rajotte Reid Richards yea. Rickford Ritz Saxton Seeback Some hon. members: Yea. Shea Shipley Shory Smith The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Sopuck Stanton Storseth Strahl Some hon. members: Nay. Sweet Tilson Toet Toews Trost Trottier The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt And five or more members having risen: Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace ● (2255) Warawa Warkentin [Translation] Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Williamson Wong following division:) Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) (Division No. 732) Zimmer–— 153 YEAS NAYS Members Members

Adler Aglukkaq Allen (Welland) Andrews Albas Albrecht Angus Ashton Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Atamanenko Aubin Allison Ambler Ayala Bélanger Ambrose Anders Bellavance Bennett Anderson Armstrong Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Ashfield Aspin Borg Boulerice Baird Bateman Boutin-Sweet Brison Benoit Bergen Brosseau Byrne Bernier Bezan Caron Casey Blaney Block Cash Charlton Boughen Braid Chisholm Choquette Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Chow Christopherson Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Cleary Comartin Bruinooge Butt Côté Cotler Calandra Calkins Crowder Cullen Cannan Carmichael Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Carrie Chisu Davies (Vancouver East) Day Chong Clarke Dewar Dionne Labelle June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17775

Business of Supply Donnelly Doré Lefebvre [English] Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Ms. Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will Easter Eyking vote no. Foote Fortin Freeman Fry [Translation] Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will Gravelle Groguhé also be voting against the motion. Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer [English] Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Mr. Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North Kellway Lamoureux votes no. Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière [Translation] LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also votes no. MacAulay Mai Marston Martin [English] Masse Mathyssen May McCallum (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) following division:) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) (Division No. 733) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Mulcair Nantel Nash Nicholls YEAS Nunez-Melo Pacetti Members Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Adler Aglukkaq Pilon Plamondon Albas Albrecht Quach Rafferty Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Rankin Ravignat Allison Ambler Raynault Regan Ambrose Anders Rousseau Saganash Anderson Armstrong Sandhu Scarpaleggia Ashfield Aspin Scott Sellah Baird Bateman Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Benoit Bergen sor) Bernier Bezan Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Blaney Block St-Denis Stewart Boughen Braid Stoffer Sullivan Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Toone Tremblay Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael PAIRED Carrie Chisu Nil Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen [English] Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Fantino Fast Hon. Tony Clement moved for leave to introduce Bill C-63, An Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Fletcher Galipeau Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Gallant Gill federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, Glover Goguen 2014. Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal (Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time) Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Hon. Tony Clement moved that Bill C-63, An Act for granting to Hiebert Hillyer Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public Holder James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014, be Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) read the second time and referred to a committee. Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leitch Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I think you Lemieux Leung will find agreement to apply the results from the previous motion to Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes. MacKenzie Mayes The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this McColeman McLeod Menegakis Menzies fashion? Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) [Translation] Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Ms. Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the Obhrai O'Connor vote, and we will vote against the motion. Oliver O'Neill Gordon 17776 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply

Opitz O'Toole Raynault Regan Paradis Payne Rousseau Saganash Poilievre Preston Sandhu Scarpaleggia Raitt Rajotte Scott Sellah Reid Richards Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Rickford Ritz sor) Saxton Seeback Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Shea Shipley St-Denis Stewart Shory Smith Stoffer Sullivan Sopuck Stanton Toone Tremblay Storseth Strahl Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Sweet Tilson Toet Toews Trost Trottier PAIRED Nil Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt The Speaker: I declare the motion adopted. Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Accordingly this bill stands referred to a committee of the whole Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to and I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks the whole. Williamson Wong (Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) the whole thereon, Mr. Joe Comartin in the chair) Zimmer–— 153 (On clause 2) NAYS ● (2300) Members [Translation] Allen (Welland) Andrews Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Chair, it is my duty Angus Ashton to ask the President of the Treasury Board if the estimates bill is in its Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger usual form. Bellavance Bennett Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe (On clause 2) Borg Boulerice Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Boutin-Sweet Brison Brosseau Byrne Mr. Chair, yes, the presentation of this bill is identical to that used Caron Casey during the previous supply period. Cash Charlton Chisholm Choquette [English] Chow Christopherson Cleary Comartin The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry? Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Some hon. members: Agreed. Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Dewar Dionne Labelle An hon. member: On division. Donnelly Doré Lefebvre (Clause 2 agreed to) Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry? Foote Fortin Freeman Fry Some hon. members: Agreed. Garrison Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin An hon. member: On division. Gravelle Groguhé Harris (St. John's East) Hsu (Clause 3 agreed to) Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry? Julian Karygiannis Kellway Lamoureux Some hon. members: Agreed. Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) An hon. member: On division. Leslie Liu (Clause 4 agreed to) MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry? May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Some hon. members: Agreed. Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) An hon. member: On division. Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Mulcair Nantel (Clause 5 agreed to) Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry? Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon Some hon. members: Agreed. Quach Rafferty Rankin Ravignat An hon. member: On division. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17777

Business of Supply (Clause 6 agreed to) The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion? [Translation] The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry? Some hon. members: Agreed. [Translation] Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms. Nycole Turmel: Mr. Chair, the NDP agrees to apply the vote An hon. member: On division. and we will vote no. (Clause 7 agreed to) [English] The Chair: Shall Schedule 1 carry? Ms. Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, Liberals agree to apply and will vote no. Some hon. members: Agreed. [Translation] An hon. member: On division. Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois votes no. (Schedule 1 agreed to) [English] The Chair: Shall Schedule 2 carry? Mr. Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes no. Some hon. members: Agreed. Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no. An hon. member: On division. (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the (Schedule 2 agreed to) following division:) The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry? (Division No. 734) Some hon. members: Agreed. YEAS An hon. member: On division. Members Adler Aglukkaq (Clause 1 agreed to) Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) The Chair: Shall the preamble carry? Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Some hon. members: Agreed. Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin An hon. member: On division. Baird Bateman Benoit Bergen (Preamble agreed to) Bernier Bezan Blaney Block [English] Boughen Braid Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) The Chair: Shall the title carry? Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Bruinooge Butt Some hon. members: Agreed. Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu An hon. member: On division. Chong Clarke (Title agreed to) Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro The Chair: Shall the bill carry? Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Some hon. members: Agreed. Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty An hon. member: On division. Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill (Bill agreed to) Glover Goguen Goodyear Gosal The Chair: Shall I rise and report the bill? Gourde Grewal Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes Some hon. members: Agreed. Hiebert Hillyer (Bill reported) Holder James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) [Translation] Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Hon. Tony Clement moved that the bill, be concurred in. Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon [English] Lebel Leitch Lemieux Leung Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe Lizon Lobb you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous Lukiwski Lunney MacKenzie Mayes concurrence motion to this motion, with the Conservatives voting McColeman McLeod yes. Menegakis Menzies 17778 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply

Merrifield Miller Nunez-Melo Pacetti Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Papillon Patry Moore (Fundy Royal) Péclet Perreault Nicholson Norlock Pilon Plamondon Obhrai O'Connor Quach Rafferty Oliver O'Neill Gordon Rankin Ravignat Opitz O'Toole Raynault Regan Paradis Payne Rousseau Saganash Poilievre Preston Sandhu Scarpaleggia Raitt Rajotte Scott Sellah Reid Richards Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Rickford Ritz sor) Saxton Seeback Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Shea Shipley St-Denis Stewart Shory Smith Stoffer Sullivan Sopuck Stanton Toone Tremblay Storseth Strahl Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Sweet Tilson Toet Toews PAIRED Trost Trottier Nil Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Some hon. members: Agreed. Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Wong Hon. Tony Clement moved that the bill be read the third time Woodworth Yelich and passed. Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer–— 153 Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you will agreement to apply the results from NAYS the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives Members voting yes. Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton The Speaker: Is there consent to proceed in this fashion? Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Some hon. members: Agreed. Bellavance Bennett Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe [Translation] Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brison Ms. Nycole Turmel: Mr. Chair, the NDP agrees to apply the vote Brosseau Byrne and we are still voting no. Caron Casey Cash Charlton [English] Chisholm Choquette Chow Christopherson Ms. Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will Cleary Comartin vote no. Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen [Translation] Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Day Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois is voting Dewar Dionne Labelle no. Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) [English] Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Mr. Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North Foote Fortin votes no. Freeman Fry Garrison Genest-Jourdain [Translation] Giguère Godin Gravelle Groguhé Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Chair, the Green Party votes no. Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer ● (2305) Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis [English] Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Larose (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Latendresse Laverdière following division:) LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu (Division No. 735) MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen YEAS May McCallum Members McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Adler Aglukkaq Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Albas Albrecht Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Mulcair Nantel Allison Ambler Nash Nicholls Ambrose Anders June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17779

Business of Supply

Anderson Armstrong Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Ashfield Aspin Borg Boulerice Baird Bateman Boutin-Sweet Brison Benoit Bergen Brosseau Byrne Bernier Bezan Caron Casey Blaney Block Cash Charlton Boughen Braid Chisholm Choquette Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Chow Christopherson Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Cleary Comartin Bruinooge Butt Côté Cotler Calandra Calkins Crowder Cullen Cannan Carmichael Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Carrie Chisu Davies (Vancouver East) Day Chong Clarke Dewar Dionne Labelle Clement Crockatt Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Daniel Davidson Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dechert Del Mastro Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Devolin Dreeshen Easter Eyking Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Foote Fortin Fantino Fast Freeman Fry Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Garrison Genest-Jourdain Fletcher Galipeau Giguère Godin Gallant Gill Gravelle Groguhé Glover Goguen Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Goodyear Gosal Hughes Hyer Gourde Grewal Jacob Jones Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Julian Karygiannis Hawn Hayes Kellway Lamoureux Hiebert Hillyer Lapointe Larose Holder James Latendresse Laverdière Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Leslie Liu Kent Kerr MacAulay Mai Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Marston Martin Lake Lauzon Masse Mathyssen Lebel Leitch May McCallum Lemieux Leung McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Lizon Lobb Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Lukiwski Lunney Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) MacKenzie Mayes Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani McColeman McLeod Mulcair Nantel Menegakis Menzies Nash Nicholls Merrifield Miller Nunez-Melo Pacetti Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Papillon Patry Moore (Fundy Royal) Péclet Perreault Nicholson Norlock Pilon Plamondon Obhrai O'Connor Quach Rafferty Oliver O'Neill Gordon Rankin Ravignat Opitz O'Toole Raynault Regan Paradis Payne Rousseau Saganash Poilievre Preston Sandhu Scarpaleggia Raitt Rajotte Scott Sellah Reid Richards Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Rickford Ritz sor) Saxton Seeback Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Shea Shipley St-Denis Stewart Shory Smith Stoffer Sullivan Sopuck Stanton Toone Tremblay Storseth Strahl Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Sweet Tilson Toet Toews PAIRED Trost Trottier Nil Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace (Bill read the third time and passed) Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to *** Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks [Translation] Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A) Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC) Zimmer–— 153 moved: NAYS That the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, Members be concurred in.

Allen (Welland) Andrews [English] Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Ayala Bélanger Bellavance Bennett Some hon. members: Agreed. 17780 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Some hon. members: No. Rajotte Reid Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say Seeback Shea yea. Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Some hon. members: Yea. Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Toews Trost Trottier Truppe Some hon. members: Nay. Tweed Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa And five or more members having risen: Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) ● (2310) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Wong Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) following division:) Young (Vancouver South) Zimmer–— 152 (Division No. 736) NAYS YEAS Members Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Adler Aglukkaq Atamanenko Aubin Albas Albrecht Ayala Bélanger Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Bellavance Bennett Allison Ambler Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Ambrose Anders Borg Boulerice Anderson Armstrong Boutin-Sweet Brison Ashfield Aspin Brosseau Byrne Baird Bateman Caron Casey Benoit Bergen Cash Charlton Bernier Bezan Chisholm Choquette Blaney Block Chow Christopherson Boughen Braid Cleary Comartin Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Côté Cotler Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Crowder Cullen Bruinooge Butt Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Calandra Calkins Davies (Vancouver East) Day Cannan Carmichael Dewar Dionne Labelle Carrie Chisu Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Chong Clarke Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Clement Crockatt Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Daniel Davidson Easter Eyking Dechert Del Mastro Foote Fortin Devolin Dreeshen Freeman Fry Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Garrison Genest-Jourdain Fantino Fast Giguère Godin Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Gravelle Groguhé Fletcher Galipeau Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Gallant Gill Hughes Hyer Glover Goguen Jacob Jones Goodyear Gosal Julian Karygiannis Gourde Grewal Kellway Lamoureux Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Lapointe Larose Hayes Hiebert Latendresse Laverdière Hillyer Holder LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) James Jean Leslie Liu Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) MacAulay Mai Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Marston Martin Kerr Komarnicki Masse Mathyssen Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake May McCallum Lauzon Lebel McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Leitch Lemieux Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Leung Lizon Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Lobb Lukiwski Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Lunney MacKenzie Mulcair Nantel Mayes McColeman Nash Nicholls McLeod Menegakis Nunez-Melo Pacetti Menzies Merrifield Papillon Patry Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Péclet Perreault Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Pilon Plamondon Norlock Obhrai Quach Rafferty O'Connor Oliver Rankin Ravignat O'Neill Gordon Opitz Raynault Regan O'Toole Paradis Rousseau Saganash Payne Poilievre Sandhu Scarpaleggia Preston Raitt Scott Sellah June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17781

Business of Supply

Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty sor) Fletcher Galipeau Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Gallant Gill St-Denis Stewart Glover Goguen Stoffer Sullivan Goodyear Gosal Toone Tremblay Gourde Grewal Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes PAIRED Hiebert Hillyer Nil Holder James Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Hon. Tony Clement moved that Bill C-64, An Act for granting to Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public Lake Lauzon Lebel Leitch administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014 be read Lemieux Leung the first time. Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney (Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time) MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod Hon. Tony Clement moved that the bill be read the second time Menegakis Menzies and referred to a committee of the whole. Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Some hon. members: Agreed. Obhrai O'Connor Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Some hon. members: No. Paradis Payne Poilievre Preston The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say Raitt Rajotte yea. Reid Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Seeback Some hon. members: Yea. Shea Shipley Shory Smith The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Sopuck Stanton Storseth Strahl Some hon. members: Nay. Sweet Tilson Toet Toews The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. Trost Trottier Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt And five or more members having risen: Van Kesteren Van Loan (2320) Vellacott Wallace ● Warawa Warkentin [Translation] Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Williamson Wong following division:) Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) (Division No. 737) Zimmer–— 153 YEAS NAYS Members Members

Adler Aglukkaq Allen (Welland) Andrews Albas Albrecht Angus Ashton Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Atamanenko Aubin Allison Ambler Ayala Bélanger Ambrose Anders Bellavance Bennett Anderson Armstrong Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Ashfield Aspin Borg Boulerice Baird Bateman Boutin-Sweet Brison Benoit Bergen Brosseau Byrne Bernier Bezan Caron Casey Blaney Block Cash Charlton Boughen Braid Chisholm Choquette Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Chow Christopherson Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Cleary Comartin Bruinooge Butt Côté Cotler Calandra Calkins Crowder Cullen Cannan Carmichael Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Carrie Chisu Davies (Vancouver East) Day Chong Clarke Dewar Dionne Labelle Clement Crockatt Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Daniel Davidson Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dechert Del Mastro Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Devolin Dreeshen Easter Eyking Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Foote Fortin Fantino Fast Freeman Fry 17782 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Garrison Genest-Jourdain Some hon. members: On division. Giguère Godin Gravelle Groguhé (Clause 4 agreed to) Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Hughes Hyer The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry? Jacob Jones Julian Karygiannis Kellway Lamoureux Some hon. members: Agreed. Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière Some hon. members: On division. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu (Clause 6 agreed to) MacAulay Mai Marston Martin [English] Masse Mathyssen May McCallum The Chair: Shall schedule 1 carry? McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Some hon. members: Agreed. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani Mulcair Nantel Some hon. members: On division. Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti (Schedule 1 agreed to) Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry? Pilon Plamondon Quach Rafferty Some hon. members: Agreed. Rankin Ravignat Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Some hon. members: On division. Sandhu Scarpaleggia (Clause 1 agreed to) Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- sor) The Chair: Shall the preamble carry? Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Stewart Some hon. members: Agreed. Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Some hon. members: On division. (Preamble agreed to) PAIRED Nil The Chair: Shall the title carry? The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went in committee thereon, Mr. Joe Comartin in the chair) Some hon. members: On division. (On clause 2) (Title agreed to) [English] The Chair: Shall the bill carry? Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Chair, it is my duty to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether or not this bill is Some hon. members: Agreed. in its usual form. Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Some hon. members: On division. Mr. Chair, I can attest to the fact that the form of this bill is the same (Bill agreed to) as that passed in the previous supply period. The Chair: Shall I rise and report the bill? [Translation] The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Bill reported) Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Tony Clement moved that the bill be concurred in. Some hon. members: On division. Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, If you seek it, I believe (Clause 2 agreed to) you would find agreement to apply the previous concurrence motion The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry? to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes. Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion? Some hon. members: On division. Some hon. members: Agreed. (Clause 3 agreed to) [Translation] The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry? Ms. Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the Some hon. members: Agreed. vote and it will vote no. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17783

Business of Supply [English] Reid Richards Rickford Ritz Ms. Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will Saxton Seeback Shea Shipley vote no. Shory Smith [Translation] Sopuck Stanton Storseth Strahl Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois votes Sweet Tilson Toet Toews no. Trost Trottier Truppe Tweed [English] Uppal Valcourt Mr. Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace votes no. Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no. Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the Williamson Wong following division:) Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) (Division No. 738) Zimmer–— 153 YEAS NAYS Members Members

Adler Aglukkaq Allen (Welland) Andrews Albas Albrecht Angus Ashton Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Atamanenko Aubin Allison Ambler Ayala Bélanger Ambrose Anders Bellavance Bennett Anderson Armstrong Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Ashfield Aspin Borg Boulerice Baird Bateman Boutin-Sweet Brison Benoit Bergen Brosseau Byrne Bernier Bezan Caron Casey Blaney Block Cash Charlton Boughen Braid Chisholm Choquette Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Chow Christopherson Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Cleary Comartin Bruinooge Butt Côté Cotler Calandra Calkins Crowder Cullen Cannan Carmichael Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Carrie Chisu Davies (Vancouver East) Day Chong Clarke Dewar Dionne Labelle Clement Crockatt Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Daniel Davidson Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) Dechert Del Mastro Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Devolin Dreeshen Easter Eyking Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Foote Fortin Fantino Fast Freeman Fry Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Garrison Genest-Jourdain Fletcher Galipeau Giguère Godin Gallant Gill Gravelle Groguhé Glover Goguen Harris (St. John's East) Hsu Goodyear Gosal Hughes Hyer Gourde Grewal Jacob Jones Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Julian Karygiannis Hawn Hayes Kellway Lamoureux Hiebert Hillyer Lapointe Larose Holder James Latendresse Laverdière Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Leslie Liu Kent Kerr MacAulay Mai Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Marston Martin Lake Lauzon Masse Mathyssen Lebel Leitch May McCallum Lemieux Leung McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Lizon Lobb Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Lukiwski Lunney Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) MacKenzie Mayes Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani McColeman McLeod Mulcair Nantel Menegakis Menzies Nash Nicholls Merrifield Miller Nunez-Melo Pacetti Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Papillon Patry Moore (Fundy Royal) Péclet Perreault Nicholson Norlock Pilon Plamondon Obhrai O'Connor Quach Rafferty Oliver O'Neill Gordon Rankin Ravignat Opitz O'Toole Raynault Regan Paradis Payne Rousseau Saganash Poilievre Preston Sandhu Scarpaleggia Raitt Rajotte Scott Sellah 17784 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply

Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- Daniel Davidson sor) Dechert Del Mastro Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan Devolin Dreeshen St-Denis Stewart Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Stoffer Sullivan Fantino Fast Toone Tremblay Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Flaherty Turmel Valeriote–— 126 Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill PAIRED Glover Goguen Nil Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Harper Harris (Cariboo—Prince George) Hawn Hayes When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Hiebert Hillyer Holder James Some hon. members: Agreed. Jean Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Hon. Tony Clement moved that the bill be read a third time and Kent Kerr passed. Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I Lebel Leitch Lemieux Leung believe you would find agreement to apply the results from the Lizon Lobb previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting Lukiwski Lunney yes. MacKenzie Mayes McColeman McLeod The Speaker: Is that agreed? Menegakis Menzies Merrifield Miller Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) Some hon. members: Agreed. Moore (Fundy Royal) [Translation] Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Ms. Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole vote and it will vote no. Paradis Payne [English] Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Ms. Judy Foote: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will Reid Richards Rickford Ritz vote no. Saxton Seeback Shea Shipley [Translation] Shory Smith Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois votes Sopuck Stanton Storseth Strahl no. Sweet Tilson Toet Toews [English] Trost Trottier Truppe Tweed Mr. Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North Uppal Valcourt votes no. Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes no. Warawa Warkentin (2325) Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to ● Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks (The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the Williamson Wong following division:) Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Young (Vancouver South) (Division No. 739) Zimmer–— 153 YEAS NAYS Members Members

Adler Aglukkaq Allen (Welland) Andrews Albas Albrecht Angus Ashton Alexander Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac) Atamanenko Aubin Allison Ambler Ayala Bélanger Ambrose Anders Bellavance Bennett Anderson Armstrong Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Ashfield Aspin Borg Boulerice Baird Bateman Boutin-Sweet Brison Benoit Bergen Brosseau Byrne Bernier Bezan Caron Casey Blaney Block Cash Charlton Boughen Braid Chisholm Choquette Breitkreuz Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Chow Christopherson Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Brown (Barrie) Cleary Comartin Bruinooge Butt Côté Cotler Calandra Calkins Crowder Cullen Cannan Carmichael Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Carrie Chisu Davies (Vancouver East) Day Chong Clarke Dewar Dionne Labelle Clement Crockatt Donnelly Doré Lefebvre June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17785

Business of Supply Dubé Duncan (Etobicoke North) and growth in the province. The introduction of this legislation Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking marks the culmination of almost 20 years of discussion to reach a Foote Fortin comprehensive treaty and bring about the bill in front of us tonight. Freeman Fry Garrison Genest-Jourdain Now this was no small feat. Before I go any further I want to take Giguère Godin Gravelle Groguhé a few moments to thank those who made it possible for us to be in a Harris (St. John's East) Hsu position to consider Bill C-62. Hughes Hyer Jacob Jones ● (2330) Julian Karygiannis Kellway Lamoureux [Translation] Lapointe Larose Latendresse Laverdière I want to thank the First Nation and the negotiators for their LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu tireless efforts. I also want to thank the chief commissioner of the BC MacAulay Mai Treaty Commission, Sophie Pierre, as well as Premier Clark and Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen Minister Chong for standing firmly behind the B.C. treaty process. May McCallum McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Most of all, I want to thank the men and women of Yale First Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Nation for their staunch support of the final agreement. For, in the Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Mourani end, this agreement and this bill are about them, their families and Mulcair Nantel the future of their community. Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Pacetti [English] Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Plamondon No one deserves more credit for this final agreement than Yale Quach Rafferty First Nation Chief Robert Hope. Simply put, we are here today Rankin Ravignat discussing Bill C-62 because of the vision and steadfast commitment Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash of Chief Robert Hope. We must also credit his father, the late Chief Sandhu Scarpaleggia Lawrence Hope, whose practical wisdom and quiet strength guided Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Wind- negotiators and continues to do so even after his passing. sor) Sims (Newton—North Delta) Sitsabaiesan I strongly believe that this agreement provides the people of Yale St-Denis Stewart First Nation with a strong foundation on which to build a stable, Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay accountable government and an economically prosperous, culturally Turmel Valeriote–— 126 vibrant community. PAIRED If any member of this House was in doubt of its merit, I am sure Nil that my brief description of the five key areas of the agreement will The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. convince them. (Bill read the third time and passed) The first of these key areas is its financial components. As part of *** this comprehensive treaty, Yale First Nation will receive a capital [Translation] transfer of $10.7 million. The community will also receive $2 million to promote economic development. Canada will also provide YALE FIRST NATION FINAL AGREEMENT ACT Yale First Nation with a one-time funding of $1.4 million and annual Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and funding of some $1.25 million to implement the agreement and Northern Development, CPC) moved that Bill C-62, An Act to provide key programs and services. give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make [Translation] consequential amendments to other Acts be read a second time and referred to a committee. The second key area of the agreement is land. As a result of the final agreement, Yale First Nation will own and control nearly 2,000 He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to hectares of treaty settlement land located within the Fraser Valley lead off our discussion of Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation Final Regional District just north of the town of Hope. Agreement Act. [English] In addition, 23 hectares of provincial land transferred to Yale First Nation will retain their designation as part of the agricultural land On April 11, 2013, I had the privilege to be in Vancouver to sign reserve. If any land designated as agricultural land reserve is added the Yale First Nation Final Agreement along with Chief Robert Hope to Yale First Nation in the future, this land will also retain its of Yale First Nation and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and designation as agricultural. Reconciliation for the Province of British Columbia. What is more, 233 hectares of Yale First Nation land known as The final agreement brings certainty to the ownership and use of Frozen Lakes will be accessible to the public. lands and resources in the area. It creates opportunities for the Yale First Nation and provides predictability for continued development Some hon. members: Oh, oh! 17786 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply [English] law. Clearly this bill will empower the Yale First Nation to make its The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. Could own decisions and become more vibrant, prosperous and self-reliant. members either be quiet or leave the chamber? I am having a hard time hearing, and I am sitting very close to the minister. For these reasons, I ask honourable members to adopt Bill C-62. The hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In doing so, we will build a stronger Canada for all of us. [Translation] [English] Hon. Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, 233 hectares of Yale First Nation land known as Frozen Lakes will be accessible to the public for temporary non-commercial and recreational purposes, such as Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, hunting and fishing. as you are well aware, I am rising to speak to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make With respect to the land, I should also point out that the parties consequential amendments to other Acts. The bill we are debating is sought to accommodate the interests of several neighbouring first the final step in the ratification process. This is the bringing into nation communities whose traditional territories overlap with Yale force of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement. First Nation's land.

To be precise, the agreement makes it possible for the public, This has been a very long process. In fact, the Yale First Nation including members of other first nations, to request access to Yale was formally accepted into the British Columbia treaty process on First Nation lands in order to fish, hunt and carry out other April 26, 1994. In 1996, the BC Treaty Commission declared the recreational activities as well as first nations traditional activities. Yale First Nation treaty table ready to begin negotiations on This unique provision also sets out that these requests must all be February 8, 1996, and the provincial bill received royal assent on considered by the Yale First Nation and may only be refused on June 2, 2011. Of course, it has taken two years for Canada to bring reasonable grounds. the bill forward for debate. Unfortunately, we are debating it at nearly midnight in June, when surely we could have been talking [English] about this bill many months ago. The third key area of this agreement is access to and control over natural resources. In other words, all Yale First Nation land, that is, The minister outlined some of the key provisions in the bill. I am all 2,000 hectares of treaty settlement land, would be fee simple or not going to cover that same ground. I need to declare that New private land subject to provincial and federal laws. Yale First Nation Democrats will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to would control mineral rights on its land. Yale First Nation would considering this bill at committee shortly. own any forest on its land, and Yale First Nation community members would enjoy the right to fish and harvest wildlife and migratory birds for non-commercial purposes on its land. In There are a couple of issues that I think are going to present addition, members of Yale First Nation would have the right to ongoing challenges. One of the issues that continues to not be gather plants for food, social and ceremonial purposes and to harvest resolved both in the Yale treaty and the B.C. treaty process is the natural resources in provincial parks within Yale's defined harvest issue of overlap. area, with the exception of the protected area, the Yale Garry Oak Ecological Reserve. One of the background papers provided to the aboriginal affairs The final agreement would also make it possible for Yale First committee members noted that the Supreme Court, in a variety of Nation to exercise control over water reserves, subject to federal and court decisions, has indicated that the Crown has an obligation to provincial laws, and to derive hydroelectric power from designated consult with, and where appropriate, to accommodate the interests of waterways on Yale First Nation Land. first nations claiming aboriginal rights and title over areas subject to The fourth key area of this agreement covers fishing. In fact, a a treaty or final agreement. harvest agreement that is separate from but related to the final agreement provides for fishing licences to be issued to Yale First The paper went on to indicate that it is desirable to have first Nation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The term of this harvest nations resolve overlap issues among themselves. Canada and agreement is 25 years, and Yale First Nation can renew it every 15 British Columbia have continued to encourage Yale First Nation years after the initial term expires. The terms and conditions of efforts to discuss or resolve any shared territory issues with commercial licences issued to Yale will be comparable to those of neighbouring first nations. In fact, there is certainly a dispute over licences issued to other commercial fishers. shared territory with the Sto:lo Nation. As a result of some of the ● (2335) discussions that were going back and forth, the Yale First Nation [Translation] Final Agreement was amended to allow reasonable public access to Yale First Nation land, by request, for non-commercial recreational Those are the key provisions of the Yale First Nation Final purposes, such as hunting, fishing and other recreational activities. Agreement, the agreement that Bill C-62 will enshrine in Canadian Such requests cannot be unreasonably refused by Yale First Nation. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17787

Business of Supply As a measure of that, Yale First Nation Chief Robert Hope has irreconcilable through discussions and a few first nations had entered into five written access protocols with Sto:lo individuals and resorted to the courts to attempt to protect their interests. It said that has indicated that he is willing to do so with individual fishers or first the courts system, however, was expensive and time consuming and nations bands to clarify and streamline the process for seeking access typically delivered either an all or nothing outcome, or sent the to fishing and cultural sites. There are non-exhaustive objective parties back to negotiate an agreement. criteria for the refusal of access under the reasonable access provision. However, that measure has not been satisfactory to Sto:lo. I do not think it is in the best interests of the nations involved in these disputes or the communities at large to have these unresolved The challenge of the issue of overlap and shared territories is a issues going forward as we enter into final agreements. critical one that must be dealt with, as well as implementation. There is an implementation plan in the agreement, and one would hope that Mrs. Jean Teillet, chief negotiator and legal counsel of the Sto:lo this implementation plan goes more smoothly than other imple- Nation, did indicate that in the past the government had provided a mentation plans with other land claims agreements, as the Land road map forward. She cited a number of cases. One was the Tlicho Claims Agreements Coalition will note. in the Northwest Territories, just north of Great Slave Lake, which With regard to the overlap, I want to touch on a couple of points. borders on Nunavut, borders on Saulteau territory and on the bottom One goes back to the mission statement of the BC Treaty it borders on a people called the Akaitcho people. Commission. On January 28, 1991, representatives of the govern- ments of Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Summit put I was in the House when the Tlicho agreement came forward. their signatures to the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Because the government had taken a leadership role in working and Force. It made a number of recommendations, and one was that first setting some parameters for Tlicho to move forward on resolving the nations resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories issues around the shared territories and the overlaps, by the time the among themselves. The analysis in the task force report as it relates agreement came to the House, we were able to pass that agreement at to this recommendation is that first nations must discuss overlaps all stages because there were no issues around disputes over that with neighbouring first nations preparing for negotiations, a process shared territory. for resolving overlaps should be in place before a treaty is concluded, and the BC Treaty Commission can provide advice on This was one example that was provided. There were a number of dispute resolution and services. others, including the 1975 agreement with James Bay and the Northern Quebec agreement, where there were islands in James Bay We heard from the BC Treaty Commission in a pre-study in that were hotly in dispute. anticipation of this bill coming forward. Chief commissioner Sophie Pierre indicated that, in her view, best efforts had been made by all Ms. Teillet indicated that the government, working with the first parties in the dispute over shared territories. Her strong recommen- nations that were negotiating, was carving out those islands. They dation was that the House adopt Bill C-62. were pulled out of the agreement and then the govenrment said that it would give them all the rest of the agreement, it would sign it, but it ● (2340) would take this disputed area out of the agreement for now, it would I also want to refer to the Lornie report from November 3, 2011, give them the whole agreement, then it would come back when they with regard to recommendations on shared territory dispute had solved that overlap problem and it would figure out how to put it avoidance and resolution. The reason I am raising this issue is I back in their treaty. want to encourage the government to look for opportunities to put together a better mechanism so we do not have final agreements She also talked about the Nunavik agreement signed in 2006 and coming before the House with unresolved issues around shared the Nunavut agreement in 1993. territories. Therefore, there are a number of examples where there have been I can point to other agreements like the Tsawwassen agreement, either the resources or the parameters put in place to encourage the in which there still was unresolved issues by the time we came to the nations involved to sort out those overlapped and shared territory House to debate Tsawwassen. It did pass, but there were issues with disputes before the final agreement is signed. It is unfortunate that the Sencot'en Alliance, Penelakut and Cowichan peoples around we do not have that kind of agreement before us in the House today. some of the fishing rights. However, having said that, the Yale First Nations negotiated a With regard to the Lornie report, it recommended that there should treaty in good faith. It went through the B.C. Treaty Commission be provided resources to support effective dispute resolution and process and met the various stages that had been outlined that resolution options for all first nations affected by potential conflicts nations in British Columbia agreed to back in 1991. Therefore, what relating to shared territories and overlap issues arising out of treaties, we have before us is a treaty negotiated in good faith that the New whether or not those first nations were participating in the B.C. treaty Democrats will support. process. ● (2345) There were a number of examples pointed out in the Lornie report of how these overlap issues were not getting resolved and how it was Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with creating challenges within communities. The Lornie report went on some concern that I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, the Yale First to indicate that some overlap disputes appeared to be virtually Nation Final Agreement act. 17788 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Business of Supply Resolving outstanding issues of first nations' rights through the The Yale First Nation entered into tripartite negotiations with the negotiation implementation of treaties has important benefits for federal and British Columbia governments for the settlement of their both first nations and non-first nations communities, not the least of comprehensive land claim in 1994. which is a solid legal basis for future economic development. It also reflects the modern commitment to move forward in a spirit of partnership, respect and the co-operation for mutual benefit that This modern treaty has been negotiated in good faith over almost characterized our original relationship. Two hundred and fifty years 20 years through the B.C. treaty process and agreed to by the ago the royal proclamation laid out how the richness of this land governments of Canada and British Columbia and the people of the would be fairly shared. Unfortunately, for many that vision has yet to Yale First Nation. The final agreement has already been ratified in be realized. March 2011, by members of the Yale First Nation with 68% support and in June 2011, by the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. To put it simply, the process for settling first nations land claims is needlessly slow and burdensome for first nations seeking fair settlements to outstanding grievances. The comprehensive claims or It deals with Yale First Nation's rights and responsibilities in areas modern treaties deal with the unfinished business of treaty making in such as governance, culture and heritage, natural resources, Canada, where first nations rights have not been dealt with by community infrastructure, financing and environmental protection. historical treaties or other legal means. Bill C-62 deals with the It will provide the Yale First Nation with full settlement of aboriginal ratification of such a modern treaty. rights and title and provides a modern framework for Canada, British [Translation] Columbia and the Yale First Nation to move forward toward a more prosperous common future. To date, the government has signed 24 comprehensive claims agreements with first nations in Canada, and two self-government agreements. Most of these agreements were signed under Liberal ● (2350) governments. [English] However, it is important to note that the Stó:lõ Nation and the Stó: As of September 2012, there were still 93 active self-government lõ Tribal Council have expressed great concern with this agreement. and comprehensive land claim negotiation tables across the country. They claim that the Yale treaty violates Stó:lõ rights and contend that The frequent delays and increased costs associated with federal they will no longer be able to engage in traditional practices that negotiators having to constantly return to Ottawa to revise would require passage over Yale territory. unnecessarily narrow negotiating mandates is grinding the process to a standstill. While this agreement fails to resolve all outstanding overlapping Federal negotiators simply do not have the sufficient flexibility claims, we recognize that according to current practice this does not and authority to engage in open, genuine and interest-based preclude ratifying the treaty. According to the Government of negotiations with first nations. This must change if we are to make Canada comprehensive claims policy, “Ideally, competing Abori- significant further progress. On average, it takes 15 years to reach a ginal claims over a territory should be resolved before reaching an final agreement. In September 2012, the government acknowledged AIP, but this is not a compulsory requirement”. its approach was not working by announcing a new “results-based approach” to self-government negotiations. However, the govern- ment has yet to publicly describe the details of this new approach. Although, according to section 2.4, the final agreement deals with aboriginal rights and title with respect to the Yale First Nation only, There are grave concerns that the government is planning to use and does not affect the rights of other aboriginal peoples, it is this new approach to simply withdraw from certain negotiations and regrettable that the parties were unable to resolve their differences pursue only those it believes will be settled in a manner agreeable to before this final stage of the process. the government. In fact, the government seems now to be pursuing a take-it-or-leave-it approach with first nations, suggesting that if they are not willing to accept the government's final offer, they can pursue Liberals hope that the Yale and Stó:lõ first nations will resolve any the matter through the courts. outstanding overlapping claims through ongoing good faith This approach is fundamentally misguided and will not only be negotiations and can resolve their differences in the spirit of co- more expensive for the government in the long run, it will cost both operation and respect. However, the issue of overlapping claims and first nations and the Canadian economy in terms of potential current deficiencies in how we address those claims is a matter with economic development and better paying jobs for first nations and far broader implications than this specific agreement. non-first nations alike. In terms of this agreement, although the Yale First Nation, and We must develop a better process to facilitate first nations provincial and federal governments have been able to come together, resolving disputes on overlapping claims as part of the treaty there are still concerns that the narrow Department of Justice process. While we recognize that it is for first nations to resolve “strength of claim” analysis contributed to this final agreement these issues, we must be ready and willing to provide assistance failing to resolve disputed overlapping territory. where warranted and requested. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17789

Business of Supply [Translation] of aboriginal peoples, who made Quebec the first nation in the Americas to recognize the aboriginal nations in its midst. In addition, the Liberal Party urges the government to respond to the requests of the British Columbia Treaty Commission as well as The Bloc Québécois believes that the future does not lie in the recent recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on pointless opposition, but rather in constructive partnerships that Aboriginal Peoples to provide the Commission with any necessary respect the legitimate interests of all parties. The Bloc Québécois's resources that would enable it to help first nations resolve their political position allows it to move the current debate forward, overlapping claims disputes. generate new ideas and provide a broad outline for what could be the renewal of the relationship between the first nations and Quebeckers. The Liberal Party believes that this is essential to the success of The Bloc Québécois stands behind aboriginal peoples in their quest the treaty process in British Columbia. for justice and the recognition of their rights. ● (2355) For example, we believe that the entire first nations education [English] system is underfunded. A 2% cap on increases in federal funding for Further, the failure of the government to develop a coherent education in aboriginal communities has been in place since 1996, approach to implementing treaties not only undermines new treaty yet given the rise in the cost of living and the tremendous growth in negotiations but has led to great frustration from first nations under the first nations population, an annual increase of 6.2% is needed. the 70 historical treaties. That is not currently happening. Recently, National Chief Shawn Atleo reflected that frustration That is why the Bloc Québécois had the courage to introduce Bill when he said: C-599 during the previous Parliament. This bill had to do with the implementation of a first nations education funding plan, and its goal Treaty regions have been signalling for far too long the need for high-level discussions on Treaty implementation. They want to see the establishment of a was to force the government to increase education funding for process for them to sit down with their Treaty partner, the Crown in right of Canada, aboriginals and to develop a long-term funding plan. to implement the Treaties according to their true spirit and intent, as the Indigenous Nations understand them. Young people represent hope and the future of the first nations. We must focus on education and academic success, essential assets The right to self-determination and self-government must mean that must be seen as investments that will pave the way to the future. something real and tangible for first nations across Canada. The future does not lie in pointless opposition, but rather in As Bill C-62 meets the current rules, we will be supporting the constructive partnerships that respect the legitimate interests of all bill, but we implore the government to get on with the letter as sent parties. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that aboriginal peoples make from the BC Treaty Commission, with its four recommendations, a significant contribution to Quebec society. This contribution is and to fix this problem. made possible because of the wealth of culture and knowledge of the [Translation] aboriginal peoples. Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased The Bloc Québécois supports protecting these fundamental rise this evening to speak to Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation Final aspects of the collective identity of aboriginal peoples, as well as Agreement Act, which concerns the Yale First Nation in British maintaining their languages. With regard to future relations between Columbia. the government and aboriginal peoples, we feel it is important to Almost 40 years ago now, the governments of Quebec and Canada support a more comprehensive approach that recognizes the signed an important agreement with the Cree and Inuit nations: the aspirations of aboriginal peoples and favours negotiating agreements James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This was the first nation to nation. major modern-day agreement negotiated in Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of sending the bill on the Yale Signed in 1975, it laid the foundation for the social, economic and First Nation Final Agreement to be studied in committee, since it administrative organization of a significant part of Quebec's was the result of respectful negotiations with the Government of aboriginal population. Canada, the Government of British Columbia and the Yale First The agreement covered all aspects of the lives of the Cree and Nation. In addition, this agreement will enable the Yale First Nation Inuit people, who received 10,400 km2 in land holdings. Quebec also to exercise self-government over its land, resources and members. gave them exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights on category Respect is what allows us to build sustainable connections II lands and on all of the territory covered by the agreement. between peoples. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement paved the way ● (2400) for collaborative agreements in Canada, such as the Yale First Nation [English] Final Agreement. Quebec decided to take a different approach to its dealings with aboriginal people in the 1970s. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 4, Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale The Bloc Québécois recognizes aboriginal peoples as distinct First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amend- peoples entitled to the culture, language, customs and traditions that ments to other Acts, is deemed read a second time and referred to the are key to the development of their identity. In so doing, it is Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Develop- respecting the direction taken by René Lévesque, a staunch defender ment. 17790 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Adjournment Proceedings (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee) training people are being asked to take has nothing to do with the work they are being asked to do. Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 12:24 a.m. Other than contributing to the Conservative Party coffers, what The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed? merit do these people have? ● (2405) Some hon. members: Agreed. [English] Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS we want to encourage people to look for jobs and reward them for doing so. For that reason, we have removed disincentives to work A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed from employment insurance and for this we have been criticized. to have been moved. [Translation] The opposition parties have been recklessly misleading Cana- dians. I would like to assure the hon. member it is not our intention EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE to punish EI claimants or to harm any of our regional economies. On Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, the contrary, and this is something we have been saying all along, we NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am taking the time to follow up on a question I want all Canadians who want to work to be able to work. raised in the House. We feel that the response the government gave Canadians is absolutely pathetic. We have increased funding to programs that help young people and people with disabilities get work experience so they can develop As I recall, I was talking about a case in New Brunswick and who and make use of their skills and meet employer needs. We are can or cannot be an employee of the public service. The enhancing learning and labour market information so people can parliamentary secretary responded that they had put forward make better, more informed education and career choices. We offer employment insurance reforms to better connect Canadians with apprenticeship grants and tax credits to encourage students to pursue available jobs, which had absolutely nothing to do with the question careers in the skilled trades. We provide significant support to I asked. increase the labour market participation of people with disabilities, youth, aboriginal people and older workers. We invest over $10 Canadians expect their administrative tribunals to be just, fair and billion annually to support post-secondary education. accessible, not a haven for defeated Conservative candidates and party donors who pocket fat salaries paid with taxpayers' hard- I think it is time that the opposition stops misleading Canadians earned money. about the facts regarding skills training and employment insurance reform. However, instead of having an employment insurance system that is accessible and an appeal system that workers can trust, the Since 2006, this government has stayed focused on what matters Conservatives are completely destroying the legitimacy of appeal most to Canadians, that being jobs, economic growth and long-term bodies by obviously stacking them with their best friends. prosperity. Among the candidates appointed so far to the Social Security [Translation] Tribunal we have Valerie Parker, who donated $1,450 to the Mrs. Anne-Marie Day: Mr. Speaker, we have a dichotomy here Conservative Party; Leroy Legere, a former MP and provincial because we seem to be talking about two different subjects. Conservative minister in Nova Scotia; Pierre Lafontaine, a defeated Conservative candidate in Jeanne-Le Ber in the 2011 election; Jean- The minister is convinced that these people have the qualifications Philippe Payment, a defeated Conservative candidate in Terrebonne needed to fulfill their role on the Social Security Tribunal. They were —Blainville in 2011; Claude Durand, a defeated candidate in Trois- appointed publicly, and we would like the minister to commit Rivières in 2008, Alcide Boudreault, a defeated candidate in publicly to providing us with copies of the test. Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in 2004 and 2006; Shane Parker, who fought for the Conservative nomination in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar The response that the Conservatives have jobs to offer and that in 2008; Kelley Sherwood, a Reform Party activist since 1997; they want to connect EI claimants with employers has nothing to do Mr. Provo, a former provincial Conservative candidate in Nova with what we are talking about here. People have been appointed to Scotia during the 2006 and 2009 elections. the Social Security Tribunal. They are party friends and donors. They took tests and exams, and we would like to see those tests as I could go on like that until the end of my speech, but I would run proof that these people are truly competent. out of time. All these people are now working for a tidy figure somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000, courtesy of the We at least want the Conservatives to admit that these were Canadian taxpayers. partisan appointments. We would also like the minister to assure Canadians that they will have the right to a fair appeal process. We How can the minister explain the so-called merit on which these know that, in the previous process, unemployed workers were appointments to the Social Security Tribunal are based? We want represented by members of a board made up of three people, whereas justice for employment insurance claimants at a time when the now just one person will make the decisions. June 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 17791

Adjournment Proceedings [English] In contrast, the NDP policy in this area is positive and robust. It is worth reading verbatim a policy resolution passed unanimously at Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, let me just say what we would our recent policy convention: like to focus on. In a fragile economy, it is the EI changes that will connect Whereas science requires sustained, consistent and predictable investment, and Canadians with available jobs. The hon. member seems to forget that failing to do so undermines long-term innovative potential; EI reforms are there to help workers, not hamper them. We have removed disincentives to ensure people are required to find jobs and Whereas science includes all major scientific fields of inquiry, including engineering, the social sciences and humanities; find them more easily, and that they are rewarded for their efforts. We fully sympathize with Canadians who have lost their jobs and are Be it resolved that the NDP consult widely with scientists, researchers, making a genuine effort to find employment in the region but are businesses, post-secondary institutions, provincial, territorial and First Nations unable to obtain it. These Canadians can be certain that EI will leaders to reverse the damage done by Conservative policies and cuts...and [develop] continue to be there for them. This is a priority for the government. a Made in Canada National Science Strategy;

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Be it further resolved that the NDP move to match the percentage of GDP Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, invested by the public and private sectors in research and development...as found in other global leading countries such as the United States. I realize the hour is late, but I appreciate the opportunity to follow up on my earlier questions for the government regarding science in Canada. Therefore, my challenge for the Conservatives is to produce such a policy or resolution here tonight and tell Canadians what their My question for the Conservatives is this. Where is their national targets are. science policy and what goals and objectives does this policy contain? ● (2410) These are important questions and we need answers for them. The Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Conservatives are making massive changes to how we approach and of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is fund science in this country, without any idea, I fear, of what they are extremely proud of the world-class work that our scientists and doing and how they are hurting the pursuit of knowledge in this researchers do. They help us achieve key social goals, such as country. improving public health, ensuring the safety of food and products, Let us zoom out to specifics. Since coming to power in 2006, the building strong and vibrant economies all across the nation and Conservatives have reduced the overall amount of funding they ensuring a clean and healthy environment for future generations. provide to science and technology in this country. While they spout about having spent $9 billion since 2006, this figure is deceitful and Since the Prime Minister launched our country's science and misleading. It is deceitful because the Conservatives do not include technology strategy starting in 2007, we have made substantial inflation in their calculations. This is a very basic accounting investments to strengthen Canada's research advantage. In fact, since practice. When we speak of funding over time, we must include 2006, our government has provided more than $9 billion in new inflation in the calculations and present the figures in real dollars. resources to support science, technology and the growth of Therefore, calculations made by the Library of Parliament experts, innovative businesses. These investments have helped to attract using numbers provided by Statistics Canada, show that between and retain talent, support excellence in science, bring discoveries and 2006 and 2013 overall funding for science and technology has innovation to the marketplace and build science and technology actually declined by almost 2.5%. infrastructure. That is right. In addition to getting rid of the long form census, muzzling scientists and mangling the National Research Council, the Now I will point to recent successes. current government has cut funding by almost 2.5% since coming to power. This 2.5% may not seem like much, but when it is applied at Last fall, the National Research Council of Canada flew the the national level, it means labs, libraries and other facilities closing, world's first civilian jet powered 100% with biofuel. Last year, and scientists and researchers losing their jobs. This is exactly what Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics is happening. played a role in supporting the discovery of the Higgs Boson subatomic particle. This year, Astronaut Chris Hadfield became the The news gets worse. The recently released “State of the Nation first Canadian to take command of the International Space Station. 2012” report by the Conservative-created Science, Technology and Innovation Council shows that Canada's gross domestic expenditure on R and D has seriously declined under the current government. In These achievements have made headlines at home and around the contrast, R and D investment in most other countries has been world. They represent just a few of the many Canadian scientific increasing. In fact, Canada has dropped from 16th in 2006, to 23rd in accomplishments of which we can all be proud. However, we know 2011, when it comes to overall R and D investment. Therefore, the that good science cannot exist in a vacuum. It must be effectively Conservatives do not have a plan for Canada's knowledge economy, communicated and shared with Canadians and the greater scientific and they flail about on this file while inflicting serious damage. community, and we do this in many ways. 17792 COMMONS DEBATES June 5, 2013

Adjournment Proceedings Each year, scientists at federal departments and agencies publish I guess my question to the minister would be this. Does his $9- thousands of peer-reviewed articles, research reports and data sets. billion figure include an adjustment for inflation or not? These materials are available to other scientists, Canadians and to the Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I just said. scientific community around the world. These findings are shared at scientific conferences at home and abroad. Since 2006, our government has provided more than $9 billion in new resources to support science, technology and the growth of Federal departments and agencies also participate in thousands of innovative businesses. media interviews each year. Through our action plan of an open government, we have committed to engage Canadians through open Our government is extremely proud of the world-class work our information, open data and open dialogue. We recently launched the scientists and researchers do. However, we recognize that good Government of Canada open data portal, which provides a one-stop science cannot exist in a vacuum. It must be effectively commu- shop for federal government data, making thousands of federal data nicated and shared with Canadians and the greater scientific sets freely available to the public. Open communication of science community, and we do this in many ways. provides evidence on the results of Canadian federal investments. Our government has supported new initiatives that highlight the Canada's world-class federal scientists and researchers have work of federal scientists and make that widely available to the pushed forward the frontiers of knowledge and improved develop- Canadian public. Canada's federal scientists also publish thousands ment for Canadians. Communication of their work plays a crucial of peer-reviewed reports and articles and participate in interviews role in achieving these goals. directly with the media. ● (2415) Our government will continue to support our scientists and Mr. Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, well, we did hear the famous researchers to ensure that the benefit of federally performed science $9-billion figure. However, as I just said in my previous comments, is fully realized by all Canadians. this figure is not adjusted for inflation at all. In fact, it is a false figure. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22 the motion to adjourn the House is The Conservative government is claiming to have increased now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands funding for science, but basic accounting principles and, as adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m pursuant to Standing Order expressed by the Library of Parliament and Statistics Canada, show 24(1). that we have had a decrease in funding since the government came to power in 2006 by just about 2.5%. (The House adjourned at 12:16 a.m.)

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Mr. Trudeau ...... 17707 Mr. Harper...... 17707 Status of Women Mr. Trudeau ...... 17707 Mr. Norlock ...... 17703 Mr. Harper...... 17707 World Environment Day Mr. Trudeau ...... 17707 Mr. Choquette ...... 17703 Mr. Harper...... 17707 Prostate Cancer Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 Mr. Keddy ...... 17703 Mr. Harper...... 17708 Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 Grandmothers Advocacy Network Mr. Harper...... 17708 Mr. Valeriote...... 17704 Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 69th Anniversary of D-Day Mr. Harper...... 17708 Mr. Opitz ...... 17704 Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 Quebec's Rural Communities Mr. Harper...... 17708 Ms. Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) ...... 17704 Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 Mr. Harper...... 17708 Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Cor- ruption Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 Mr. Harper...... 17708 Mr. Kramp...... 17704 Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 Natural Resources Mr. Harper...... 17708 Mr. Jean ...... 17704 Mr. Mulcair...... 17708 International Day of Action for Women's Health Mr. Harper...... 17708 Mrs. Sellah ...... 17705 Mr. Mulcair...... 17709 Mr. Harper...... 17709 Egypt Mr. Obhrai...... 17705 41st General Election Mr. Garneau ...... 17709 Grandmothers Advocacy Network Mr. Poilievre...... 17709 Ms. Laverdière ...... 17705 Mr. Garneau ...... 17709 Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Poilievre...... 17709 Mr. Sopuck ...... 17705 Ms. Foote...... 17709 The Environment Mr. Poilievre...... 17709 Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) ...... 17705 Mr. Scott...... 17709 Mr. Poilievre...... 17709 The Senate Ms. Latendresse ...... 17710 Mr. Gourde ...... 17706 Mr. Poilievre...... 17710 The Senate Government Appointments Mr. Nantel ...... 17706 Ms. Boutin-Sweet ...... 17710 Taxes Ms. Leitch ...... 17710 Mr. Trottier ...... 17706 Ms. Charlton ...... 17710 Ms. Leitch ...... 17710 ORAL QUESTIONS National Defence Ethics Mr. O'Toole...... 17710 ...... Mr. Mulcair 17706 Ms. Findlay...... 17710 Mr. Harper...... 17706 Royal Canadian Mounted Police Mr. Mulcair...... 17706 Ms. Doré Lefebvre ...... 17710 Mr. Harper...... 17707 Ms. Bergen ...... 17711 Mr. Mulcair...... 17707 Ms. Ashton ...... 17711 Mr. Harper...... 17707 Ms. Bergen ...... 17711 Mr. Mulcair...... 17707 Mr. Harper...... 17707 Public Works and Government Services Mr. Mulcair...... 17707 Ms. Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) ...... 17711 Mr. Harper...... 17707 Ms. Ambrose ...... 17711 Mr. Boulerice ...... 17711 ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Ms. Ambrose ...... 17711 Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Employment Insurance The Speaker ...... 17717 Mr. Trudeau ...... 17711 XL Foods Inc. Beef Recall 2012 Ms. Leitch ...... 17712 Mr. Ritz...... 17717 Government Advertising Government Response to Petitions Mr. Trudeau ...... 17712 Mr. Lukiwski ...... 17718 Mr. Clement ...... 17712 Interparliamentary Delegations International Trade Mr. Tilson ...... 17718 Mr. Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) ...... 17712 Committees of the House Mr. Fast...... 17712 Public Accounts Mr. Caron ...... 17712 Mr. Christopherson ...... 17718 Mr. Fast...... 17712 Employees' Voting Rights Act Food Safety Mr. Calkins ...... 17718 Mr. Payne ...... 17712 Bill C-525. Introduction and first reading ...... 17718 Mr. Ritz...... 17712 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and Government Advertising printed) ...... 17718 Mr. McCallum...... 17713 Cracking Down on Organized Crime and Terrorism Act Mr. Clement ...... 17713 Mr. Jean ...... 17718 Pensions Bill C-526. Introduction and first reading ...... 17718 Ms. Mathyssen ...... 17713 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) ...... 17718 Mr. Menzies ...... 17713 Telecommunications Industry Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act Mr. Nicholson ...... 17718 Mrs. Ambler ...... 17713 Bill S-16. Introduction and first reading ...... 17718 Mr. Paradis ...... 17713 (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time) ...... 17718 Air Transportation Committees of the House Mr. Nunez-Melo...... 17713 Finance Mr. Lebel ...... 17713 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17718 The Senate Motion ...... 17718 ...... Mr. Bellavance 17714 (Motion agreed to) ...... 17718 Mr. Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam) . 17714 Iran Presence in Gallery Mr. Dewar ...... 17718 The Speaker ...... 17714 Motion ...... 17719 Points of Order (Motion agreed to) ...... 17719 Oral Questions Petitions Mr. Van Loan...... 17714 Sex Selection Mr. Trudeau ...... 17714 Mr. Albrecht ...... 17719 Employment Insurance PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour)...... 17719 Language Skills Act Venezuela Mr. Lizon ...... 17719 Bill C-419. Third reading ...... 17714 National Parks Motion agreed to ...... 17715 Ms. Duncan (Etobicoke North) ...... 17719 (Bill read the third time and passed)...... 17716 Impaired Driving An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights) Ms. Young (Vancouver South) ...... 17719 Bill S-209. Third reading ...... 17716 Search and Rescue Motion agreed to ...... 17717 Mr. Hyer...... 17719 (Bill read the third time and passed)...... 17717 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Per- Mr. MacAulay ...... 17719 sons Act Peace Bill C-478. Second reading ...... 17717 Mr. Bélanger ...... 17719 Motion agreed to ...... 17717 National Parks (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee) 17717 Ms. May ...... 17720 Mining Industry Mr. Martin ...... 17746

Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17720 Mr. Cuzner ...... 17746 Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mrs. McLeod ...... 17747 ...... Mr. Lukiwski ...... 17720 Mr. Nicholls 17747 Mr. Martin ...... 17747 Motions for Papers Mr. O'Toole...... 17750

Privilege Mr. McCallum...... 17750

Elections Canada Mr. Masse ...... 17751

Mr. Andrews ...... 17720 Mr. Trottier ...... 17751 Mr. Van Loan...... 17721 Mr. Eyking ...... 17751 Mr. Scott...... 17721 Mr. McCallum...... 17751 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17721 Mr. Ravignat ...... 17753

Mrs. Yelich ...... 17753 GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Bellavance ...... 17753

Business of Supply Mr. Masse ...... 17754

Opposition Motion—The Senate Mr. Eyking ...... 17754

Mr. Ravignat ...... 17722 Mr. Preston ...... 17754

Motion ...... 17722 Mrs. Day ...... 17757 ...... Mr. Uppal 17723 Mr. Cuzner ...... 17757 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17724 Mrs. Smith...... 17758 Mr. Angus ...... 17724 Mr. Masse ...... 17758 Mr. Hsu...... 17724 Mr. Bellavance ...... 17758 Mr. Angus ...... 17724 Mr. Nicholls ...... 17759 Mr. Del Mastro ...... 17726 Mr. Chong ...... 17760 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17726 Mr. Karygiannis ...... 17760 Mr. Uppal ...... 17726 Mr. Masse ...... 17761 Mr. Julian...... 17729 Ms. Chow ...... 17761 Mr. Karygiannis ...... 17729 Mr. Trottier ...... 17762 Mr. Anderson...... 17730 Mr. Karygiannis ...... 17762 Ms. Michaud ...... 17730 Mr. Masse ...... 17763 Ms. May ...... 17730 Mr. Chong ...... 17763 Mr. McCallum...... 17731 Mr. Ravignat ...... 17765 Mrs. Hughes...... 17733 ...... Ms. Bateman ...... 17734 Mr. Lamoureux 17765 Mr. Casey ...... 17734 Mr. O'Toole...... 17766 Mr. Rousseau ...... 17734 Mrs. Day ...... 17766 Mr. Chong ...... 17735 Ms. May ...... 17766 Mr. Dionne Labelle ...... 17735 Mr. Casey ...... 17767 Mr. Galipeau ...... 17736 Mr. Blanchette ...... 17767 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17737 Mr. Albas ...... 17768

Ms. Leslie ...... 17737 Mr. Scarpaleggia ...... 17768

Mrs. McLeod ...... 17738 Ms. Sitsabaiesan...... 17769 Mr. Karygiannis ...... 17738 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act Mr. Allen (Welland) ...... 17739 Bill S-8—Notice of Time Allocation Motion Mr. Chisu ...... 17739 Mr. Van Loan...... 17770 Mr. Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) ...... 17741 Mr. Lamoureux ...... 17742 Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act Mrs. McLeod ...... 17742 Bill S-15—Notice of Time Allocation Motion Mr. Allen (Welland) ...... 17742 Ms. May ...... 17742 Mr. Van Loan...... 17770 Mr. Anderson...... 17743 Main Estimates, 2013-14 Division on motion deferred ...... 17743 Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate Main Estimates 2013-14 Motion No. 1 ...... 17770 Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate Mr. Lunney ...... 17770 Hon. Tim Uppal (for the President of the Treasury Board) 17743 Mr. Scarpaleggia ...... 17771 Motion No. 1 ...... 17743 Mr. Blanchette ...... 17771 Business of Supply Motion for concurrence ...... 17779 Opposition Motion—The Senate Motion agreed to ...... 17781 Motion ...... 17771 Bill C-64. First reading ...... 17781 Motion negatived...... 17772 (Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time) .. 17781 Main Estimates 2013-14 Second reading ...... 17781 Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate Motion agreed to ...... 17782 (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the Motion agreed to ...... 17774 House went in committee thereon, Mr. Joe Comartin in Mr. Clement ...... 17774 the chair) ...... 17782 Motion for concurrence ...... 17774 (On clause 2) ...... 17782 Motion agreed to ...... 17775 Mr. Ravignat ...... 17782 Bill C-63. Introduction and first reading...... 17775 Mr. Clement ...... 17782 (Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time) .. 17775 (Clause 2 agreed to)...... 17782 Mr. Clement ...... 17775 (Clause 3 agreed to)...... 17782 Bill C-63. Second reading ...... 17775 (Clause 4 agreed to)...... 17782 Motion agreed to ...... 17776 (Clause 6 agreed to)...... 17782 (Bill read the second time and the House went into (Schedule 1 agreed to) ...... 17782 committee of the whole thereon, Mr. Joe Comartin in the chair) ...... 17776 (Clause 1 agreed to)...... 17782 (On clause 2) ...... 17776 (Preamble agreed to) ...... 17782 Mr. Ravignat ...... 17776 (Title agreed to) ...... 17782 (On clause 2) ...... 17776 (Bill agreed to) ...... 17782 Mr. Clement ...... 17776 (Bill reported) ...... 17782 (Clause 2 agreed to) ...... 17776 Motion for concurrence ...... 17782 (Clause 3 agreed to) ...... 17776 Motion agreed to ...... 17784 (Clause 4 agreed to) ...... 17776 Bill C-64. Third reading ...... 17784 (Clause 5 agreed to) ...... 17776 Motion agreed to ...... 17785 (Clause 6 agreed to) ...... 17777 (Bill read the third time and passed)...... 17785 (Clause 7 agreed to) ...... 17777 Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act ...... (Schedule 1 agreed to) 17777 Mr. Valcourt ...... 17785 (Schedule 2 agreed to) ...... 17777 Bill C-62. Second reading ...... 17785 (Clause 1 agreed to) ...... 17777 Ms. Crowder ...... 17786 (Preamble agreed to) ...... 17777 Ms. Bennett ...... 17787 (Title agreed to) ...... 17777 Mrs. Mourani...... 17789 (Bill agreed to) ...... 17777 (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee) . 17790 (Bill reported) ...... 17777 Motion for concurrence ...... 17777 ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS Motion agreed to ...... 17778 Employment Insurance Bill C-63. Third reading ...... 17778 Mrs. Day ...... 17790 Motion agreed to ...... 17779 Mr. Obhrai...... 17790 (Bill read the third time and passed)...... 17779 Science and Technology Supplementary Estimates (A) Mr. Stewart ...... 17791 Mr. Clement ...... 17779 Mr. Obhrai...... 17791

Published under the authority of the Speaker of Publié en conformité de l’autorité the House of Commons du Président de la Chambre des communes SPEAKER’S PERMISSION PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT

Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre et and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate support, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne and is not presented as official. This permission does not soit pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial pas permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this délibérations à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un permission or without authorization may be treated as profit financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. ou non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme Authorization may be obtained on written application to the une violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. droit d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de la Chambre. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne constitute publication under the authority of the House of constitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre. Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the Le privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to Chambre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lors- these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes qu’une reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un briefs to a Committee of the House of Commons, authoriza- comité de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de tion for reproduction may be required from the authors in leurs auteurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à accordance with the Copyright Act. la Loi sur le droit d’auteur. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges, privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses comités. Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas l’interdiction permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibérations de la or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La Chambre courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisateur and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduction ou reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission. l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permission.

Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the Aussi disponible sur le site Web du Parlement du Canada à following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca l’adresse suivante : http://www.parl.gc.ca